IRC log of rdf-star on 2022-04-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:02:28 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:02:28 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:02:30 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:02:31 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
15:02:34 [pchampin]
meeting: RDF-star
15:02:39 [olaf]
olaf has joined #rdf-star
15:02:40 [pchampin]
chair: pchampin
15:03:04 [pchampin]
Previous meeting:
15:03:12 [olaf]
15:03:12 [pchampin]
15:03:12 [agendabot]
clear agenda
15:03:12 [agendabot]
agenda+ Announcements and newcomers
15:03:12 [agendabot]
agenda+ Open actions
15:03:12 [agendabot]
agenda+ WG chartering
15:03:12 [agendabot]
agenda+ Schedule next call
15:03:14 [agendabot]
agenda+ Open-ended discussions
15:03:23 [pchampin]
15:04:16 [ora]
ora has joined #rdf-star
15:04:20 [ora]
15:04:22 [Dominik_T]
15:04:30 [pchampin]
15:06:20 [pchampin]
regrets: Fabio Vitali
15:07:07 [pchampin]
scribe: olaf
15:07:16 [pchampin]
zakim, open next item
15:07:16 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Announcements and newcomers -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:07:49 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-star
15:08:05 [olaf]
pchampin: hello
15:08:12 [olaf]
... hello again
15:08:25 [AndyS]
15:08:50 [pchampin]
15:09:02 [pchampin]
zakim, open next item
15:09:02 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:09:12 [pchampin]
15:09:44 [pchampin]
-> RDF-dev calendar
15:10:06 [pchampin]
15:10:10 [olaf]
... W3C calendar infrastructure used for the agenda now
15:10:39 [olaf]
... advantage is that it allows us to subscribe to the ICS stream
15:11:00 [olaf]
... future meetings will be added in that calendar
15:11:17 [olaf]
... No answer from danbri about publishing the CG report
15:12:03 [olaf]
... might resort to Twitter
15:13:02 [pchampin]
15:13:11 [pchampin]
15:13:52 [olaf]
... adding an explicit rationale for the (types of) docs included in the charter
15:13:55 [pchampin]
15:14:01 [olaf]
... will be addressed soon
15:14:04 [pchampin]
zakim, open next item
15:14:04 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- WG chartering -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:14:31 [olaf]
... two things about the charter ...
15:14:59 [olaf]
... first, advanced notice was emailed to the AC and, then, also to the SemWeb mailing lists
15:15:04 [ora]
15:15:11 [pchampin]
ack ora
15:15:13 [olaf]
... so far no discussion on the list :-/
15:15:25 [AndyS]
15:15:28 [olaf]
ora: informed the Amazon AC rep
15:15:35 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
15:15:38 [olaf]
... who will vote in favor
15:16:21 [olaf]
AndyS: sentiment on the mailing list is full of CFP
15:17:03 [TallTed]
TallTed has joined #rdf-star
15:17:07 [olaf]
pchampin: as an aside, the CFP-related issue was discussed
15:17:24 [olaf]
... there was an earlier discussion that CFPs are accepted on that mailing list
15:17:59 [olaf]
... the list was kept mainly ofr historical reasons
15:18:06 [olaf]
15:18:35 [olaf]
... logical would have been that the traffic would have moved to the RDF-DEV list
15:18:47 [AndyS]
RDF-dev maling list --
15:19:11 [pchampin]
15:19:51 [olaf]
... one more proposal to gather expressions of interest or disinterest
15:20:05 [pchampin]
15:20:23 [olaf]
... for which an issue will be created
15:20:29 [pchampin]
-> "expression of support" tag
15:21:05 [olaf]
... such a tag was created in the repo for another charter
15:21:36 [olaf]
... with the purpose to enable organizations to create issues that represent their expressions of support
15:22:02 [olaf]
... that was a good instrument when bringing the charter in front of the AC
15:22:26 [ora]
15:22:29 [pchampin]
ack ora
15:22:43 [olaf]
... question would be where we ask people for creating their issue
15:22:56 [olaf]
ora: there is a SemWeb group on LinkedIn
15:23:16 [olaf]
pchampin: right, there have been some lively discussions there
15:23:18 [pchampin]
15:23:48 [pchampin]
STRAWPOLL: create an "expression of interest" label on the charter repo, and ask people to create "issues" with that label
15:23:54 [pchampin]
15:23:55 [AndyS]
15:23:58 [TallTed]
15:24:02 [Dominik_T]
15:24:03 [olaf]
+1 good idea!
15:24:05 [ora]
15:24:11 [pchampin]
RESOLVED: create an "expression of interest" label on the charter repo, and ask people to create "issues" with that label
15:24:50 [olaf]
AndyS: expressions of interest happened within six weeks
15:25:16 [pchampin]
ACTION pchampin to create the issue template for "expression of support"
15:26:26 [TallTed]
15:27:01 [pchampin]
-> add text for backward compatibility
15:27:30 [olaf]
pchampin: Andy suggested to mention backwards compatibility explicitly in the charter
15:28:06 [olaf]
TallTed: Is it expression of interest or ... support?
15:28:12 [olaf]
pchampin: support
15:28:52 [olaf]
AndyS: It is only about support for the WG, not for the currently proposed solution
15:29:40 [olaf]
pchampin: There was a question of versioning
15:29:40 [TallTed]
"expression of support for WG" a/k/a "expression of interest in potential of RDF-star" a/k/a ...
15:29:44 [pchampin]
-> Versioning
15:30:01 [AndyS]
15:30:20 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
15:30:28 [olaf]
... the deliverables in the charter are called "... v.1.2"
15:30:57 [olaf]
AndyS: Another option would be to call it "RDF-star, an extension to RDF 1.1"
15:31:07 [pchampin]
15:32:14 [olaf]
... downside of this idea is that it might exclude taking care of the errata within the WG
15:33:06 [olaf]
pchampin: another downside is that it would allow implementations to stick to RDF 1.1 and still be "up to date"
15:33:30 [olaf]
AndyS: it would be nice if there was more RDF work
15:34:30 [pchampin]
15:35:21 [olaf]
pchampin: saying that this is an optional extension may be less controversial, but it may also contribute to the fragmentation of the ecosystem
15:35:34 [pchampin]
15:35:42 [olaf]
15:35:47 [pchampin]
ack olaf
15:35:50 [pchampin]
15:36:04 [pchampin]
olaf: I don't see any reason at the moment why it shouldn't be called RDF 1.2
15:36:18 [pchampin]
... if a long discussion started, then we may reconsider
15:37:14 [olaf]
15:37:18 [pchampin]
15:37:25 [olaf]
pchampin: question about chairs
15:38:11 [olaf]
ora: yes, it is okay to put my (Ora's) name as a potential chair
15:38:48 [pchampin]
action: pchampin to add Ora Lassila as one of the expected chairs
15:39:31 [olaf]
pchampin: last open issue is about the timeline
15:39:38 [pchampin]
-> Timeline
15:39:59 [olaf]
... typical timeline for WGs is 2-4 years
15:40:33 [olaf]
... for this one, it would make sense to go for the higher end
15:40:46 [olaf]
... because there are a lot of docs to be updated by this WG
15:41:48 [olaf]
... also not sure how the deadlines for the individual deliverables should be set
15:41:56 [ora]
15:42:01 [pchampin]
ack ora
15:42:05 [olaf]
... all at the end? ...or scattered within the overall timeline?
15:42:20 [olaf]
ora: getting nightmares thinking of 4 years
15:42:43 [olaf]
... if properly scoped, it may be possible in 2 years
15:43:20 [olaf]
pchampin: nowadays start with more mature input than in the early days
15:44:10 [ora]
15:44:13 [olaf]
... so, yes, maybe it's reasonable to schedule it in 2 years
15:44:21 [pchampin]
ack ora
15:44:22 [olaf]
... but also required a lot of man power
15:44:27 [TallTed]
Durations below 2 years may make sense when associated CG or similar is able to produce something the broader community accepts as near to CR. I don't think our planned scope will be fully achievable in less than 2 years. We might target 2 years and state up front that we see potential need for recharter/extension because of fairly broad scope.
15:44:42 [olaf]
ora: establish an optimistic expectation
15:44:56 [olaf]
... if we say "4 years", then it will take 4 years
15:46:38 [olaf]
pchampin: okay, there seems to be some agreement or sentiment that 2 years should be the goal
15:46:43 [pchampin]
STRAWPOLL: plan for a 2 years charter, planing of rechartering if necessary
15:46:45 [pchampin]
15:46:56 [olaf]
15:47:15 [Dominik_T]
15:47:21 [ora]
15:47:23 [TallTed]
15:47:33 [TallTed]
15:47:44 [pchampin]
RESOLVED: plan for a 2 years charter, planing of rechartering if necessary
15:48:20 [olaf]
pchampin: next question is about setting a deadline for every doc
15:48:49 [ora]
15:48:59 [olaf]
... no point in having a granularity smaller than 6 months
15:49:04 [pchampin]
ack ora
15:49:34 [olaf]
ora: uncomfortable with the charter specifying such deadlines
15:49:53 [olaf]
... because the WG may realize that something comes up
15:50:18 [olaf]
... preferrable to have the charter mention such dates more as suggestions rather than mandatory
15:50:47 [olaf]
pchampin: yes, agree
15:51:28 [TallTed]
"Target timeline" is common in charters, tho rarely satisfied in my experience
15:52:18 [TallTed]
("Target timeline" might not be the label that's been used, but it's the meaning.)
15:53:29 [pchampin]
zakim, open next topic
15:53:29 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'open next topic', pchampin
15:53:30 [olaf]
pchampin: when will the next call be?
15:53:33 [pchampin]
zakim, open next item
15:53:33 [Zakim]
agendum 4 -- Schedule next call -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:54:08 [olaf]
... not possible in 3 weeks because of the Web Conf.
15:54:31 [olaf]
... weeks before hard as well
15:54:47 [olaf]
... so, proposal is to have the next call in 4 weeks from now
15:55:28 [pchampin]
15:55:51 [pchampin]
PROPOSAL: have our next call on the 6th of May
15:55:56 [pchampin]
15:56:08 [TallTed]
15:56:09 [olaf]
15:56:11 [Dominik_T]
+0 (I have a scheduled visit to the doctor, I don't know if I will make it)
15:56:36 [ora]
15:57:31 [pchampin]
RESOLVED: have our next call on the 6th of May (unless something unexpected happens in between)
15:58:16 [pchampin]
15:59:32 [pchampin]
16:02:11 [olaf]
olaf has left #rdf-star