15:47:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:47:56 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/02/11-rdf-star-irc
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: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2022-01-21.html
15:53:15 <pchampin> chair: pchampin
15:53:26 <pchampin> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2022Feb/0026.html
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> present+
16:01:25 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:01:53 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:02:26 <pchampin> present+
16:02:33 <olaf> present+
16:04:10 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
16:04:27 <ora> present+
16:04:29 <william> william has joined #rdf-star
16:05:01 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:05:05 <doerthe> present+
16:05:24 <gkellogg> present+
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> q?
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> q?
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> present+
16:12:42 <fabio_vitali> present+
16:12:45 <olaf> q+
16:12:51 <pchampin> scribe+
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> scribe-
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> q+
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> +1
16:20:50 <pchampin> +1
16:20:52 <TallTed> +1
16:21:13 <fabio_vitali> +1
16:21:22 <doerthe> +1
16:21:22 <william> +1
16:21:40 <ora> +1
16:21:45 <AndyS> +1
16:21:46 <gkellogg> +1
16:21:52 <pchampin> RESOLVED: wait 3 weeks until next call, then resume to weekly (expecting regular cancellation)
16:21:56 <pchampin> q?
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> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/247
16:22:45 <olaf> ... ping DanB about publishing the repüort 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> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/246
16:23:13 <olaf> q+
16:23:20 <pchampin> ack olaf
16:23:22 <pchampin> scribe+
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.  https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
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> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/240
16:24:45 <olaf> q+
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> q+
16:25:54 <pchampin> ack AndyS
16:26:04 <pchampin> s/Stargod/Stardog/
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> scribe-
16:26:54 <pchampin> q?
16:27:07 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/243
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> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/241
16:27:46 <pchampin> Corese
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> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/245
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> q?
16:29:27 <olaf> AndyS: there is a new PR
16:29:33 <olaf> ... it can be merged
16:29:41 <pchampin> PR https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/251
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> s/tem/them
16:30:40 <pchampin> q?
16:30:47 <pchampin> PR https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/250
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> q?
16:32:05 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues/6
16:32:12 <olaf> pchampin: now to open actions on the charter
16:32:27 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/pull/12
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> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues/2
16:33:46 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/pull/11
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> q?
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> q-
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> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter
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> q+
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> q?
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> q+
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> q?
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> q?
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> q+
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> s/hae/have
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> q+
17:01:05 <pchampin> ack olaf
17:01:08 <pchampin> scribe+
17:05:17 <pchampin> q?
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