16:00:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
16:00:08 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/03/04-rdf-star-irc
16:00:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:00:11 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
16:00:15 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star
16:00:18 <pchampin> chair: pchampin
16:01:29 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:01:29 <pchampin> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2022Mar/0001.html
16:01:33 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:01:33 <agendabot> agenda+ Announcements and newcomers
16:01:33 <agendabot> agenda+ Open actions
16:01:33 <agendabot> agenda+ WG chartering
16:01:33 <agendabot> agenda+ Schedule next call
16:01:33 <agendabot> agenda+ Open-ended discussions
16:01:38 <pchampin> Previous meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2022-02-11.html
16:01:46 <rivettp> rivettp has joined #rdf-star
16:02:09 <rivettp> present+
16:02:11 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:02:22 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:02:26 <olaf> present+
16:02:27 <TallTed> present+
16:02:27 <pchampin> present+
16:02:28 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
16:02:34 <gkellogg> present+
16:02:42 <AndyS> present +
16:03:37 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
16:03:37 <doerthe> present+
16:03:41 <AndyS> present+
16:03:44 <ora> present+
16:04:04 <Fabio> Fabio has joined #rdf-star
16:04:04 <csarven> csarven has joined #rdf-star
16:04:13 <Fabio> hello
16:05:18 <Fabio> I will have to leave early tonight, sorry
16:05:36 <csarven> I can scribe.
16:05:45 <pchampin> scribe: csarven
16:05:50 <pchampin> zakim, next item
16:05:50 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements and newcomers -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:06:04 <pchampin> scribe+
16:06:32 <pchampin> csarven: have been working on Linked Data stack for a while
16:06:40 <pchampin> ... chairing the Solid CG, involved in WebID
16:06:50 <pchampin> ... curious about what's coming from this group
16:07:04 <pchampin> q?
16:07:20 <pchampin> scribe-
16:07:23 <pchampin> zakim, next item
16:07:23 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:07:42 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction
16:07:43 <csarven> pchampin: we have a number of open actions.. mostly for future reference. long time pending
16:07:52 <pchampin> q+
16:07:56 <csarven> ... rather than going through each, does anyone have something to report on one of these actions?
16:08:05 <olaf> q+
16:08:12 <csarven> ... I have one but if anybody else?
16:08:13 <pchampin> ack olaf
16:08:38 <csarven> olaf: Just for the record.. I haven't heard from C.. semantics, ???, Ontotext ??? startup
16:08:40 <pchampin> ack pchampin
16:08:45 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/247
16:09:03 <olaf> s/C.. semantics/Cambridge Semantics
16:09:16 <olaf> s/startup/Stardog
16:09:18 <csarven> pchampin: I do have something for danbri. I have tried reaching out. He did reply. Hope that the final report will be published on the CG page.
16:09:34 <csarven> ... We also talked briefly not directly related ot the action, the chartering we are working on.
16:09:39 <olaf> s/Ontotext ???/Ontotext,
16:09:54 <csarven> ... He has some concerns on the amount of the work the group is taking on.
16:10:49 <csarven> AndyS: What were the questions?
16:11:05 <csarven> pchampin: Some were.. you'll have describe ??? and SPARQL.
16:11:18 <csarven> ... how do we deal with multiple ??? I've also pointed him to the blogpost.
16:11:27 <csarven> ... I hope that explains our positions and some patterns dealing with that.
16:11:29 <gkellogg> q+
16:11:37 <csarven> ... That's basically the concerns that he has raised
16:11:45 <csarven> AndyS: I can understand the discussions in the mailing list.
16:11:53 <olaf> s/multiple ???/multiple edges
16:11:55 <csarven> ... That's an observation. Did he say how they can be resolved so we can go forwards?
16:12:08 <csarven> pchampin: This was just ... didn't hav emuch time to develop the discussion
16:12:20 <olaf> s/describe ??? and/describe the semantics of
16:12:26 <csarven> ... We believe that there is enough interest in the RDF-star in the community. So, that's my position and shared by other people here.
16:12:42 <csarven> ... There is enough interest in RDF-star and join the WG.
16:12:47 <pchampin> ack gkellogg
16:13:01 <csarven> gkellogg: The issue was publishing the final report on the CG page.
16:13:22 <csarven> ... It sounds like his objections to ??? were the charter for the WG is a different issue.
16:13:37 <csarven> pchampin: When I asked him again for the report, he didn't object to the report. I think it'll be done soon.
16:13:44 <csarven> pchampin: Does that answer the question?
16:14:03 <csarven> gkellogg: I'm wondering if there is a need ot take the report wider to the group.
16:14:18 <csarven> ^ was AndyS?
16:14:31 <csarven> gkellogg: The reason to publish was to get wider review.
16:14:42 <csarven> ... but those issues can be separated regarding the charter.
16:14:59 <csarven> ... It is like you said, what comes first the cart or the horse.. important to get the report out.
16:15:09 <csarven> ... Not sure there is more to do for the report to have it published.
16:15:29 <csarven> pchampin: I didn't perceive any concerns or problems with the publishing of the CG report.
16:15:51 <csarven> gkellogg: This is input for the WG .. not an invitation to rubber stamp.
16:16:15 <csarven> pchampin: Creating the WG was the point. To be transparent, I mentioned the proposed charter and also wrt chairing.
16:16:36 <csarven> ... sent a probe to danbri with that respect. Whether this thing was ready to create a WG.. and therefore moving to REC.
16:17:13 <csarven> gkellogg: It sounds like danbri is a gatekeeper... but okay to have the voice.. and we need to use the process and not up to danbri to hold the process.
16:17:15 <csarven> pchampin: I agree.
16:17:30 <csarven> pchampin: I'll probably encourage danbri to have the discussion on the mailing list.
16:17:56 <csarven> ... Whether that's the RDF-star mailing list or something else.. we do need ot have it soon to broaden the discussion for the SW community at large.
16:18:13 <TallTed> s/gkellogg: It sounds like danbri is a gatekeeper... but okay to have the voice.. and we need to use the process and not up to danbri to hold the process.//
16:18:16 <gkellogg> s/gkellogg: It sounds like danbri is a gatekeeper... but okay to have the voice.. and we need to use the process and not up to danbri to hold the process.//
16:18:28 <pchampin> q?
16:18:58 <csarven> pchampin: Another issue? On the CG reports front?
16:19:08 <csarven> ... Hearing none.
16:19:18 <csarven> ... I propose we move on to chartering and review actions.
16:19:23 <pchampin> zakim, next item
16:19:23 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- WG chartering -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:19:32 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues
16:19:51 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues/13
16:19:57 <pchampin> Andy to add missing SPARQL documents
16:20:06 <csarven> pchampin: Issue 13 was completed. Thank you AndyS. I've merged the PR already.
16:20:27 <csarven> ... There is another document ??? not added. Was that deliberate?
16:20:48 <csarven> AndyS: I can't remember. Remember looking at them.. But there is no problem with TSV or CSV? It is fine.
16:21:01 <csarven> pchampin: I did add them as well.. but did not consider them in the report.
16:21:21 <pchampin> q?
16:21:26 <csarven> ... How to best quote triples in teh CSV. Even if it doesn't support it, it should be said. For the group decide.
16:21:33 <csarven> ... We can close that one (issue 13)
16:21:36 <csarven> ... after the call
16:21:44 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues/14
16:21:52 <pchampin> add explicit reference to RDF primer
16:22:08 <pchampin> PR: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/pull/17
16:22:36 <csarven> ... add explicit reference to RDF primer. So in the list of non-normative reports ???
16:22:51 <csarven> ... I pushed this PR shortly before the call. If you can review, please do.
16:22:53 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues/10
16:22:57 <pchampin> liaisons with other groups
16:23:07 <csarven> ... Addressed issue 10 for liaison with other groups
16:23:27 <csarven> ... with property schema WG. Also related ISO group for property extension ???
16:23:44 <pchampin> PR: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/pull/18
16:23:50 <csarven> ... I added the links .. made another PR 18.
16:24:09 <olaf> s/property schema WG/Property Graph schema WG at LDBC
16:24:16 <csarven> ... Not so much for the CG itself but to include anything that would come up during the chartering process or the lifetime of htis group.
16:24:43 <olaf> s/property extension ???/Property Graph extension for SQL
16:24:58 <gkellogg> q?
16:24:59 <csarven> ... What I had in mind was for the upcoming RDF canonicalization. We can't point yet but hopefully it exists. Starts to exists before/at the time with this WG. So I've put a link to the proposed charter ??? RDF-DEV
16:25:01 <gkellogg> q+
16:25:03 <csarven> ... Any questions/comments?
16:25:06 <pchampin> ack gkellogg
16:25:39 <csarven> gkellogg: There seems to be activity in SPARQL 1.2 group.. I'm not sure where it is with regards to a charter. If that's something that needs to be coordinated or ??? overalapped.
16:25:52 <csarven> pchampin: Or the more we claim for the spARQL specification
16:26:18 <csarven> TallTed: I haven't seen ??? We should say if SPARQL 1.2 happens we should coordinate.
16:26:22 <csarven> pchampin: Good point. I'll action myself.
16:26:28 <pchampin> ACTION pchampin to add liaison with Sparql 1.2 CG
16:26:56 <TallTed> s/???/anything like movement toward a SPARQL 1.2 WG charter./
16:27:00 <pchampin> q?
16:27:09 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues/19
16:27:17 <pchampin> scribe+
16:27:59 <pchampin> csarven: may have missed some steps in the creation of the charter,
16:28:08 <pchampin> ... but I noticed that RDFa 1.2 was not mentioned
16:28:29 <pchampin> ... while a majority of concrete syntax are lentioned
16:28:34 <pchampin> s/lentioned/mentioned/
16:28:59 <pchampin> ... Was this discussed previously? What are the requirements to have this included?
16:29:52 <pchampin> ... RDFa 1.0 and 1.1 are widely adopted.
16:30:18 <csarven> scribe+
16:30:26 <gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues/6
16:30:27 <csarven> pchampin: We have discussed RDFa and CSVW.
16:30:46 <csarven> ... There are so many RDF related specs and we can't possibly commit to all.
16:30:58 <csarven> ... We decided to focus on the WGs that RDF and SPARQL.
16:31:11 <csarven> ... it'd be a shame not to address this where people are interested in order to progress
16:31:26 <csarven> ... ew.g., some of us have worked with JSON-LD-Star.. and managed by another WG
16:31:39 <gkellogg> https://json-ld.github.io/json-ld-star/
16:31:57 <csarven> ... the decision was to leave the door open by mentioning that the group could adopt during its lifetime, requiring re-chartering.
16:32:10 <csarven> ... people interested in working on it should come to us.
16:32:11 <ora> q+
16:32:17 <gkellogg> q+
16:32:21 <pchampin> ack ora
16:32:24 <csarven> ... including it in the initial charter would be ???
16:32:37 <csarven> ora: there are serialization syntaxes and there is almost like a one way dependency
16:32:51 <csarven> ... so rdf-star doesn't need to depend on a particular serialization
16:33:04 <csarven> ... we work on the model so the key issues give the community at least one serialization syntax
16:33:13 <csarven> ... and other people can volunteer on the other stuff
16:33:23 <csarven> ... but rdf-star is not held back
16:33:43 <pchampin> ack gkellogg
16:33:44 <csarven> pchampin: csarven's concern was ... indeed that I also agree with this dependency thing as you've put it.
16:33:56 <csarven> gkellogg: We did discuss this with regards to JSON-LD
16:34:14 <csarven> ... there is a WG active - not presently ???
16:34:27 <csarven> ... which could get together to work on JSON-LD to include these features
16:34:30 <AndyS> q+
16:34:57 <csarven> ... we also discussed RDFa CSVW.. there is no WG that's active within their scope. It seems like for a new WG to be chartered.
16:34:59 <Fabio> [leaving]. Will keep on reading the scribe. Sorry. Ciao!
16:34:59 <TallTed> It may be worth noting that "these serializations were chosen for our focus because..." in the charter doc, and being more explicit about accepting/adopting submissions of specs for other serializations
16:35:15 <csarven> ... they could be included by recharter RDF-star WG.. but there need sto be preliminary work.
16:35:33 <csarven> ... JSON-LD ??? there is improvements that can be done
16:35:44 <csarven> ... I'm interested in seeing what we can do to improve support for RDFa.
16:35:53 <csarven> ... There are supports for graph in RDFa
16:36:29 <csarven> ... There are serialization formats tha tthe WG did not do.. the best place for that work to happen in a group with intersted people
16:36:42 <csarven> q+
16:36:54 <pchampin> ack AndyS
16:36:57 <csarven> pchampin: The idea was to keep the charter tight so that the AC find it realistic
16:37:55 <csarven> AndyS: I agree with the discussions so far. Within the charter.. there is a rather ??? with the specs. And ... might be active. When the group picks up too much. Exit from the group ??? RDFa related to RDF-star. It could be added to the RDF-star itself.
16:38:04 <csarven> ^ I'm sorry I couldn't scribe that well
16:38:37 <pchampin> ack csarven
16:38:39 <pchampin> scribe+
16:38:44 <TallTed> might limit to "editorial errata" which won't require implementation changes so won't put a major gate on exiting CR
16:39:27 <AndyS> AndyS: The work on RDF Core/SPARQL WG specs includes errata work.
16:39:43 <pchampin> csarven: is it a requirement that such work should be part of a working group ?
16:40:16 <ora> RDF/XML should just die.
16:40:29 <pchampin> ... compared to RDF/XML, other syntaxes are more useful.
16:40:40 <pchampin> ... Again, RDFa is largely used.
16:40:54 <AndyS> There are people that use and like it. YMMV.
16:41:12 <csarven> scribe+
16:41:46 <csarven> pchampin: RDF/XML was a deliverable of the RDF group.. so we added notes saying that provided that there is enough involvement
16:42:11 <csarven> ... to answer you questoin on the necessity of a WG.. with JSON-LD there is a group that could take care of the JSON-LD star or 1.2
16:42:18 <csarven> ... That's not the case for RDFa or CSW..
16:42:37 <csarven> ... Our view is that this group will happily adopt if people want to work on it.
16:42:50 <csarven> ... and will consider bringing it to REC state.
16:44:44 <csarven> AndyS: Could be through RDFa CG
16:46:25 <csarven> gkellogg: There is not going to be critical mass behind RDF/XML to put something together but there could easily be for RDFa 1.2. For if CG is established, settle on syntax, publish a report, then that could be a reasonable thing for RDF-star WG to adopt after charter update
16:49:59 <csarven> gkellogg: There is language in charters time allowing, the group will consider "these" documents..
16:50:27 <csarven> .. .the question is that the type of thing that should be added in rechartering.. or would that complicate what's there
16:50:44 <csarven> ... IMO ??? could all obe in that category if time allowed.
16:50:50 <AndyS> AndyS: There isn't anything blocking RDFa discussion either on RDF-DEV or here.
16:50:54 <csarven> ... There may not be enough time for us to get to RDF/XML /s
16:51:13 <csarven> pchampin: We can continue on the github issue.
16:51:24 <csarven> ... The choice was a bit arbitrary
16:51:30 <csarven> ... Initially for RDF and SPARQL WG
16:51:37 <csarven> ... and leave an opening for rechartering
16:51:45 <csarven> ... it is arbitrary but it allows us to draw the line
16:51:51 <csarven> ... and be open to new stuff if it comes up
16:52:14 <csarven> gkellogg: To what AndyS suggested to open up discussion on RDFa and take up call time.. or establish a new group for that?
16:52:32 <csarven> AndyS: If they're interested that's fine. Not until now but we don't take up on others' interest
16:52:44 <csarven> pchampin: csarven raised that as well
16:53:02 <csarven> ... We can see in the community to see if there is more interest.
16:53:42 <csarven> ... Just to be clear, this call and "task force" .. there is nothing formal about. We're from the RDF-DEV.. and for more focused discussion on RDF-star.. and this call and people here came up from shared interest to writ eup the report.
16:53:54 <csarven> ... the scope of the CG is larger so good to check
16:54:02 <csarven> ... we had to focus on getting things done
16:54:15 <csarven> ... yes, if people are interested, we can piggyback on this call to discuss
16:54:38 <csarven> ... so, bottom line is calling for people interested...
16:54:50 <pchampin> zakim, next item
16:54:50 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Schedule next call -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:55:20 <csarven> ... decided no to fix every two weeks.. but adhoc based on requirements.
16:55:50 <csarven> ... I have one action that can be handled that doesn't need much discussion. SPARQL group has liasoain on. besides discussing with danbri
16:56:04 <csarven> ... ??? urgent need ot discuss it sooner than later
16:56:26 <csarven> ... otherwise 2-3 weeks from now is ...
16:56:38 <olaf> let's pencil down two weeks from now
16:56:45 <pchampin> s/??? urgent need ot discuss it sooner/do we need to discuss WG chairs/
16:57:01 <csarven> gkellogg: As I recal there are people that wanted to participate .. if we leave out two weeks that might help
16:57:07 <csarven> pchampin: Not sure wha tyou mean by pencil down
16:57:15 <olaf> okay, then three weeks
16:57:32 <rivettp> I do have another call every other week
16:57:42 <csarven> olaf: suggestion is to put it two weeks from now but three weeks is fine too
16:57:42 <rivettp> so would not be able t make 3 weeks
16:57:48 <pchampin> PROPOSED: next call on 25th of march
16:57:52 <pchampin> +1
16:58:07 <olaf> +1
16:58:09 <doerthe> +1
16:58:13 <Dominik_T> +1
16:58:20 <ora> +1
16:58:22 <gkellogg> +1
16:58:33 <rivettp> -1
16:58:44 <AndyS> +1
16:58:49 <csarven> +1
16:59:05 <TallTed> +1  25th is fine
16:59:37 <csarven> rivettp: Mind the daylight changes.
16:59:49 <csarven> pchampin: oooooohhhh
17:00:14 <pchampin> RESOLVED: next call on 25th of march
17:00:20 <csarven> ... will look into it when I do the proper date
17:00:32 <pchampin> q?
17:01:04 <AndyS> Bye!
17:01:14 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
17:03:11 <pchampin> RRSAgent, link
17:03:11 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'link', pchampin.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:04:27 <pchampin> RRSAgent, bookmark
17:04:27 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2022/03/04-rdf-star-irc#T17-04-27
17:18:16 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:34:33 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:42:55 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:00:22 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:03:49 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:56:49 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:58:32 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:41:48 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:58:25 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:22:09 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:40:35 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:59:12 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:16:48 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:36:55 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:11:47 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:28:45 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:36:13 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:25:06 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:42:18 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star