RDF-star WG

souri is excused from todays call

<pfps> wasn't there an action to set up a scribe list last week?

Scribe

Zakim: propose scribe

Approve minutes: https://www.w3.org/2023/02/23-rdf-star-minutes.html & https://www.w3.org/2023/03/02-rdf-star-minutes.html

ora: We have two minutes to approve
… comments, objections?

pfps: There are no changes made to the minutes from 2023/03/02
… my issues are still in there
… I provided an updated version of the minutes for the one last week
… I communicated my concerns, there is an action icon for it
… there is no process so it's not clear who this is on
… I'm not aware what is on the list of process items

TallTed: there are no objections to last weeks minutes

<enrico> +1

ora: proposal to accept last weeks minutes

<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to say that there is usually a resolution for this

TallTed: can pfps provide a script of what is expected in the process

pfps: I make an action icon to raise my concerns to the group about the process

ora: I appreciate that work but I am not interested in moving backwards, moving forward instead

pfps: there were WG actions that were not supported by process, that process can start now

ora: let's define that resolutions so we can move forward, not editing minutes
… process is important but should not be a hindrance for moving forward

pfps: lack of process is a hindrance for moving forward

ora: it's not all about process. it's important but there can be too much process. we want the other stuff done, that's what we are chartered to do
… let's try to make the best of it. we are all improving and learning things

RESOLUTION: approve minutes from 2023-03-02

RDF-star Working Group Process

<TallTed> `action: <name> to <action summary>`

ACTION: pfps to write a proposal document for a WG process

<ghurlbot> Created action #28

pfps: I'm flabbergasted. I was expecting a proposal how to change the process

ora: we don't have a concrete proposal today

pfps: this is a severe problem with the WG and should be fixed, before next meeting.

ora: adrian and I had a discussion about organizing the work in the WG. We propose to do the following
… we need to identify the work items this WG needs to take
… we need to understand the dependencies of this work items
… not everyone needs to work on these items
… we are close to the point where we can devide ourself into taks forces
… to work on the work items
… we can have periodic WG calls to keep track of what is going on & do coordination where needed
… to us this is what we consider a pragmatic way
… compared to these calls where we don't go deep into the matter
… how do we identify all these things that need to happen. we might not know all of them right now and discover more
… but we know some things we need to work on

pchampin: lack of process and the need of process: we have to learn as we go. some of us were in WGs & have ideas
… others do not
… I have some responsibilities, maybe I was not enforcing some of them enough. like resolutions for the minutes
… we need to move forward and build our own process. Peter you raise some needs, let's build them as we go instead of setting up everything upfront

pfps: that is fine except we have changes to do in 22 documents. it's unclear what the status of these changes are
… and wether the WG even thought about the changes to be made
… when we go to the first public draft someone needs to go through them and see are these changes the WG wants

ora: I don't disagree, every change should be accompanied with some resolution from a prior meeting
… where do we keep track of resolutions that were made? do we have a collection of them?

TallTed: they don't get collected, they just remain in the minutes and can be reviewed there

<pfps> at one time there was a way to finding all the resolutions on one page - this may have been something special that someone (Ivan?) did

TallTed: in past experience there is an issue raised, a discussion, a concensus about the solution. which turns into a PR and/or action which enacts that resolution.
… the action/PR is closed when it is done
… first public working draft does not reflect anything necessarily of a groups opinion

<pchampin> I was going to make exactly that remark: a working draft does not imply consensus of the WG

TallTed: it's showing activity
… we have a lot of work done by some of the WG that cleaned up the markup. those changes do not require group approval at all I think
… in my opinion we could publish all of them today as first working draft.
… we can add a disclaimer that says this does not reflect anything in particular

ora: let's write down the process step for us: issue, discussion, PR, etc.
… this does not require fixing meeting minutes typos etc.
… I ask for a volunteer to write down this template/process

<pfps> the working group did discuss creating FPWDs and did mention what is to be done, but there was no resolution, and what is to be done was vague

ACTION: TallTed to draft working process from issue, to discussion, to consensus of action, to PR, to completion

<ghurlbot> Created action #29

adrian: we only heard opinions from peter so far, what are other opinions? there are many people in the group

afs: process needs to be sorted out, but not a very heavyweight process. we cannot bring every single little change to the WG for resolution
… I think the role of an editor is to bring a document to the WG
… we are custodians of a document
… we won't find the consensus when the issue is raised. we will have a feeling if it is a working group discussion or of it's just something simple to fix. We act as custodians, every change needs to be judged.

<afs> afs: balance between custodians and change agent.

pfps: there was no message about the recording raised in the beginning

pchampin: I checked, the feature is available and cannot be disabled. I think the message only appears when someone clicks on it on their own side

<pfps> From the process document: No-one may take an audio or video recording of a meeting, or retain an automated transcript, unless the intent is announced at the start of the meeting, and no-one participating in the recorded portion of the meeting withholds consent. If consent is withheld by anyone, recording/retention must not occur. The announcement must cover: (a) who will have access to the recording or transcript and (b) the

<pfps> purpose/use of it and (c) how it will be retained (e.g. privately, in a cloud service) and for how long.

ora: we can't take actions to prevent that. peter you feel strongly that this message is repeated

pfps: it's not my opinion, it's part of the W3C process.
… last time I said I'm with it as long as it is properly scoped

ora: this time we are compliant

<pchampin> is live captioning considered "recording"? as it does not keep anything?

gtw: my interpretation is this is only about the retention. not about the real-time usage

adrian: it can be downloaded in zoom. my interpretation is unless someone saves it, it does not apply

adrian: you are offered to save the transcript at the end; so the process apply if anyone decides to save it
… at leat that's my reading

ora: I think we are fully in compliance so far
… this is in the minutes, everyone in the WG is aware of it
… I don't want to spend more time on it as we are not out of compliance

<pfps> OK, I guess

ora: does anybody has an objection that we add a resolution that every WG member has to be in compliance of this part of the process

<pchampin> PROPOSAL: every WG participant has to comply with W3C process by *not* saving the transcript generated by live captioning

<pfps> +1

+1

<ora> +1

<pchampin> +1

<olaf> +1

<enrico> +1

<TallTed> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<Doerthe> +1

<gtw> +1

RESOLUTION: every WG participant has to comply with W3C process by *not* saving the transcript generated by live captioning

<AZ> +1

<afs> +1

Quick status update of ongoing activities

Canonicalization

ora: Adrian, piere-antoine and myself met with the RDF Canonicalization group chair this morning. To discuss collaboration with them and timelines. They start horizontal reviews soon. candidate recommendation not later than september

pchampin: there is a dependency between their work and ours. they need a canonical form of NQuads. Ntriples is underspecified. there seems to be quite some consensus that the lack or underspecification are bugs
… it's more an oversight most likely.
… the proposal is to fix this bug ASAP
… and have a public working draft
… the draft does not reflect WG consensus, it is not too much commitment from us
… that's what the Canonicalization WG would like to see happen

<afs> https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#func-datatype

afs: similar situation in SPARQL query
… it says "this part gets adopted when the other WGs go to REC"
… we could make Canonicalization WGs lives easier by doing a deep review as soon as we can

<pfps> i propose that the WG consider fixing the problems with canonicalization in n-triples and n-quads as part of addressing errata in the existing documents

ora: I'm not opposed to a review

<pchampin> FTR, the corresponding PR in rdf-n-quads is w3c/rdf-n-quads#17

pfps: that problem should be fixed. we should make sure it gets fixed
… would be great to get the RDF Canonicalization get to look at it so we get it right

pchampin: they did write it so that should not be a problem

ora: I'm still working on use-cases at our end here. I hope to submit those in the next couple of weeks

short names

pchampin: we have 6 minutes left, we should review the open actions
… and make a habit of having this as a regular point in the agenda

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aaction

<pchampin> #4

<ghurlbot> Action 4 decide on the short names of the specifications (on pchampin) due 22 Dec 2022

<pfps> I added the "complete" tag as an attempt to improve process on actions

pchampin: I propose to close it.

<pchampin> ghurlbot, close #4

<ghurlbot> Closed action #4

TallTed: reviewing action items is best done early in the meeting, following approval of minutes.
… allows to claim victory & ask for help. should be done fast

<pchampin> +1 TallTed

<ora> +1 TallTed

ora: I'll work on mine until next week

pchampin: how do we want to go forward with task forces? maybe we should organise a call with those interested in the semantics
… a parallel call for editors has been self organized already
… maybe enrico or anybody else interested could self-organize that
… I think that could happen offline

enrico: I can send a message to the mailing list and do a call of like one hour

ora: I'm fine with that

TallTed: it might be worthwile doing more publicity. We are working on RDF 1.2 and SPARQL 1.2, I don't think the general public realizes or appreciates that yet
… some past participants might come back once they realize that we're not *only* doing RDF-star and related.

ora: good comment, let us pick that up next week.
… we know for sure that we need to work on the semantics so it would be good if enrico could organize a call

<pchampin> ghurlbot, enrico = franconi

ACTION: enrico to organize a separate call about semantics

<ghurlbot> Created action #30

<TallTed> barring objection, I will dismiss the bots, who will finalize their parts of the minutes