16:00:26 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star 16:00:31 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/03/30-rdf-star-irc 16:00:34 Topic: RDF-star WG weekly meeting 16:01:43 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f2add3af-6743-4f52-8fcc-4f62c6cdd8af/20230330T120000 16:01:43 clear agenda 16:01:43 agenda+ Scribe: Taelman, Ruben (alternate: Thibodeau, Ted) 16:01:43 agenda+ Approval of last week's minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2023/03/23-rdf-star-minutes.html 16:01:43 agenda+ Review of open actions, available at -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3 16:01:44 agenda+ Review of pull requests, available at -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4 16:01:57 present+ 16:02:34 present+ 16:02:39 scribe+ 16:02:46 present+ 16:02:51 present+ 16:03:49 AZ has joined #rdf-star 16:03:55 pfps has joined #rdf-star 16:03:57 present+ 16:04:05 present+ 16:04:06 present+ 16:04:07 Chair: ora 16:04:22 TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF-Star WG — 2023-03-30 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f2add3af-6743-4f52-8fcc-4f62c6cdd8af/20230330T120000#agenda 16:04:27 zakim, next item 16:04:28 agendum 1 -- Scribe: Taelman, Ruben (alternate: Thibodeau, Ted) -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:04:35 scribe+ gtw 16:04:35 zakim, next item 16:04:35 agendum 1 was just opened, ktk 16:05:07 zakim, close item 16:05:07 I don't understand 'close item', ktk 16:05:16 Zakim, this is Approval of last week's minutes 16:05:16 got it, ktk 16:05:34 doerthe has joined #rdf-star 16:05:50 zakim, this is RDF-star WG 16:05:50 got it, gkellogg_ 16:05:51 Zakim, open item 2 16:05:52 agendum 2 -- Approval of last week's minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2023/03/23-rdf-star-minutes.html -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:06:02 present + 16:06:08 present+ 16:06:11 present+ 16:06:14 a generally available cheat sheet would be useful 16:06:25 ora: comments about minutes? 16:06:25 pfps: working on it, will publish it 16:06:25 last week's minutes look fine 16:06:42 looks ok 16:06:55 ... hearing no objections, resolving this. 16:06:58 RESOLUTION: last week's minutes approved 16:07:15 Zakim, open item 3 16:07:16 agendum 3 -- Review of open actions, available at -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:08:03 ora: we don't have to spend much time on [open actions]. many completed. also many still open. 16:08:12 gkellogg_: items 35 and 30 look the same. 16:08:15 ora: they are. 16:08:37 35 and 30 are different - 30 was for the first meeting, 35 was to set up a recurring call 16:09:01 30 is done, I don't think 35 is done 16:09:12 gkellogg_: I marked item 38 complete. Does it take this call to close it? 16:09:17 ora: unless there's need to discuss, they can be closed. 16:09:33 TallTed: do we want to put that into the readme (or someplace else)? 16:09:44 ora: wiki page? where did you draft that? 16:09:47 TallTed: within the issue. 16:09:56 ora: can we move it to the wiki? 16:10:06 TallTed: I'll put it into the master readme. 16:10:23 q+ 16:10:27 ktk: if you want to close it, you can do that in irc. 16:10:39 close #38 16:10:40 Closed -> action #38 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/38 16:10:45 ... "close #NUMBER" 16:11:02 TallTed: Zakim will get confused by those numbers. They are per-repo. 16:11:21 gkellogg_: you can be more explicit. "close w3c/rdf-star-wg#38" 16:11:22 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/38 -> Action 38 [closed] consider moving wiki work from GitHub-hosted to W3-hosted (on gkellogg) 16:11:49 ... same way you specify it in other pull requests 16:12:02 close #39 16:12:03 ora: do we have to specify them? 16:12:03 Closed -> action #39 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/39 16:12:09 gkellogg_: rdf-star-wg is the default repo. 16:12:36 ora: ktk, can you close the remaining ones? 16:12:54 pfps: I'm unclear on status of #35. Please don't close it. 16:12:54 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/35 -> Action 35 setup recurring call for discussing the semantics (on pchampin) due 24 Mar 2023 16:13:05 ... there is no repeating call for semantics task force. 16:13:13 ora: we have separate calendar for task force. 16:13:24 pfps: I was unaware of different calendar. 16:13:48 ... I don't remember seeing how task forces are supposed to set up their meetings. 16:14:01 ora: we'll check. I saw the calendar last week, but don't have a pointer. 16:14:03 https://www.w3.org/groups/tf/rdf-star-semantics 16:14:12 ktk: can we link calendar in the issue as well? 16:14:13 calendar is at: https://www.w3.org/groups/tf/rdf-star-semantics/calendar 16:14:26 OK 35 has actually been done 16:14:28 gkellogg_: there are regular meetings setup. 16:14:33 close #35 16:14:34 Closed -> action #35 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/35 16:14:36 pfps: #35 is done. 16:14:53 ktk: 30 is done as well. 16:14:57 close #30 16:14:58 Closed -> action #30 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/30 16:15:06 ora: leave 29 open until TallTed has done his thing. 16:15:17 agenda? 16:15:17 Zakim, open item 4 16:15:20 agendum 4 -- Review of pull requests, available at -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:15:36 Zakim, close item 1 16:15:36 agendum 1, Scribe: Taelman, Ruben (alternate: Thibodeau, Ted), closed 16:15:37 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:15:37 2. Approval of last week's minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2023/03/23-rdf-star-minutes.html [from agendabot] 16:15:40 Zakim, close item 2 16:15:40 agendum 2, Approval of last week's minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2023/03/23-rdf-star-minutes.html, closed 16:15:42 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:15:42 3. Review of open actions, available at -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3 [from agendabot] 16:15:47 Zakim, close item 3 16:15:47 agendum 3, Review of open actions, available at -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3, closed 16:15:49 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 16:15:49 4. Review of pull requests, available at -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4 [from agendabot] 16:15:54 ora: some of these [PRs] need discussion. 16:16:03 q+ 16:16:13 ... we merged some this past week. can have discussion on the ones marked as needing it. 16:16:22 q+ 16:16:26 q- 16:16:41 q- 16:16:41 ktk: this includes all things from other repos. it should be up to date. 16:16:44 ack ktk 16:17:00 ack gkellogg 16:17:05 gkellogg_: Is it most efficient to start with ones needing discussion? Or those that we can dispatch quickly? 16:17:22 ... there's a number of things in concepts and n-quads listed as "enhancement" not needing discussion. but also not editorial. 16:17:41 ora: we need a review of those which can be done offline. 16:17:48 gkellogg_: they all have reviews/approvals. 16:18:12 ... policy was after approvals, editorial thigns can be merged. typically wait a week, but SPARQL group has shortened that under certain circumstances. 16:18:22 ... good. these things can slow us down. 16:19:08 ... the 3 marked as enhancement are security considerations in concepts and n-quads 16:19:08 ... updates that were necessary. all have approvals. 16:19:08 ... ABNF grammar. non-normative change in concepts for IRIs. 16:19:08 ... has approvals. 16:19:44 agenda+ 5. Define "First Public Working Draft" (FPWD) process: [4] 16:19:44 ... pfps did discuss it last week, but don't think that changed its status. 16:19:44 agenda+ 6. Use case proposal by Peter 16:19:44 ora: is it our intention that we leave these open and close them after a grace period? 16:19:44 agenda+ 7. Update on process concerns/proposal: 16:19:44 ... somebody may want to add a comment? 16:19:48 ... editorials we could close. 16:20:04 gkellogg_: editorials can be closed after the quorum of editors have approved it. not necessarily requiring a week. 16:20:17 ... I think enhancements need to stay open through the next meeting. 16:20:28 ... if no objections (or otherwise marked), they can be merged after the meeting. 16:20:51 ... leaving as approriate those needing discussion as something we can spend [call] time on. 16:21:12 ora: the way I interpret this is we don't actually need to do anything to the ones that don't need discussion [on call] 16:21:19 gkellogg_: we just need to set that policy 16:21:50 ora: since it isn't clear, ktk, you and I can clarify the exact policy. I haven't heard any objections to what was just said. 16:22:10 gkellogg_: I think there was an email that clarified. Open PRs that have not been blocked in meeting can be merged after the meeting. 16:22:27 ora: we should discuss just the ones that need discussion. don't spend time on the others. 16:22:54 gkellogg_: the 3 that are related to the specs that I... 16:23:02 ... rdf json datatypes and concepts. 16:23:05 q+ 16:23:12 ... not adding datatype. adding issue marker that this is soemthing we are considering. 16:23:18 ... should not be controversial. 16:23:24 ... status of rdf schema should be the same as concepts. 16:23:34 ack pfps 16:23:40 pfps: my contention is that there is no issue yet. 16:23:49 ... issue in one of the documents, but WG has not decided to take up issue. 16:23:58 gkellogg_: I think there is. 16:24:07 ACTION: ktk Clarify policy for merging PRs 16:24:25 ... there is an issue in rdf concepts. and rdf schema. 16:24:26 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/issues/7 16:24:37 ... is it necessary to create issues in the group when there are issues elsewhere? 16:24:51 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/14 16:25:02 pfps: where does this go in the dashboard. unaware that there is a dashboard that would direct WG to take up issues. 16:25:16 gkellogg_: discussed over the last month. automating dashboard that pchampin has done with regard to PRs. 16:25:29 ... more efficient to use different repos as long as visible in dashboards. 16:25:35 ... rather than making parallel issues. 16:25:42 ... nothing has been done to make that happen yet. 16:25:54 ... rdf json datatype: two issues in effected repos. 16:26:08 pfps: the WG has not decided to take up this work. so no direction from WG that this should be considered. 16:26:18 gkellogg_: we're considering that there is an issue marker. 16:26:26 pfps: the WG has not decided to take this up as an issue. 16:26:33 gkellogg_: we need to figure out how to move forward. 16:26:33 q+ 16:26:45 pfps: there needs to be some process to figure out how these things get born in the WG. 16:27:00 ... anybody could create an issue in one of the repos, and that used as cover to add an issue marker into a document. 16:27:12 ... or is it supposed to be that markers are only things WG has decided to take up? 16:27:19 ora: we are the WG. 16:27:31 pfps: one of these is marked as editorial. already decided. but we haven't even written the document. 16:27:32 q+ 16:27:37 ora: it says "needs discussion". 16:27:42 pfps: only because I put it in. 16:27:51 q+ 16:27:51 ora: that is the process working. 16:27:56 pfps: I disagree. 16:28:12 ack TallTed 16:28:22 q- 16:28:31 TallTed: I take issue with characterization of puting an issue as "cover". issue is only highlight text in draft document that there is an issue about this segment of the document. 16:28:46 ... does not say anything about the status of the issue. 16:29:04 ... we are all here of good will. doing our best to act with good intent. do not believe anybody is opening nefarious issues. 16:29:07 q+ 16:29:11 q+ 16:29:31 q- 16:29:32 q- 16:29:34 q+ 16:29:35 ... if something happens that is really bad, we will discuss it. 16:29:48 ... stop yelling about some process that is not written down. 16:29:55 ack ora 16:30:16 ora: I think these things could be called two-way doors. nothing bad is going to happen. we have multiple eyeballs on these things. 16:30:32 ... we have process for that. if something goes wrong, these are not carved in stone. we can revert them after the fact. 16:30:39 ... to me that's process that's working. 16:30:55 ... whether that's actually codified somewhere or not, it's moving us forward. 16:31:04 ... I appreciate that people do look at these and mark them as needing discussion. 16:31:07 ... then we discuss. 16:31:12 ack pfps 16:31:19 pfps: I sent out several messages with proposed processes. 16:31:39 ora: and you are unhappy with the current way we're doing things? 16:31:40 pfps: yes. 16:32:01 ... several worries. adding new things to RDF requires effort from WG. 16:32:06 ... these need review. can be a lot of work. 16:32:17 q+ 16:32:26 ... secondly, I worry the WG is going beyond the charter. should be conservative in things beyond the charter. 16:32:28 ack gkellogg 16:32:38 q+ 16:32:45 gkellogg_: I think we need a policy on the ability of editors to add issue markers without getting into the merits. 16:32:52 ... which is the point of the marker. 16:33:00 ... if a PR adding full support and there was objection, that's fair. 16:33:02 q+ 16:33:11 ... but adding issue markers is common practice. editorial decision. 16:33:22 ... let's decide it's in-bounds. want to move on to discuss c18n. 16:33:30 ack afs 16:33:33 q+ 16:33:34 PR #9 for rdf-schema is precisely a PR that adds something to documents 16:33:35 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/9 -> Issue 9 ambiguity of canonical N-Triples (pchampin) 16:33:48 andys: we ought to be able to triage discussion that's going to be adding a new issue. 16:34:11 ... raise an issue. discuss it. if there is from editors judgement that there is something WG may take up, add the marker. 16:34:11 ack ora 16:34:22 ... otherwise bottleneck in the telecon. 16:34:37 ora: liek a post-it note I put in the draft spec. "need to look into this." 16:34:42 ... I can take the note off whenever I want. 16:34:46 s/liek/like/ 16:34:56 ... I don't see danger or problem here. 16:35:11 ... if you want to add an issue marker, make a PR, mark it as needing discussion. 16:35:18 ... when we discuss, it can be merged or rejected. 16:35:41 ... issue markers are not substantive changes in spec. 16:35:50 ... should think of them as lightweight. 16:35:57 ack ktk 16:35:59 ... don't let it stop us from discussing what needs discussing. 16:36:03 +1 issue markers are like post-its 16:36:12 ktk: we had similar discussion in past week. we should make a policy. action item to codify that? 16:36:26 q- 16:36:32 ora: let's make an action item for you and me. we can take it up at our chair's call next week. 16:36:44 Action: ktk Create a policy on adding issue markers 16:36:55 gkellogg_: c18n. done for some time. ready to go. related to erratum. 16:37:04 ... c18n group depends on it. 16:37:25 ... I do think all issues have been discussed. 16:37:48 ... the only thing that didn't happen was that it needs discussion on "label" 16:37:50 (?) 16:37:50 s/c18n group/RCH group/ 16:38:01 q? 16:38:03 q+ 16:38:04 ... adding section to n-quads. minor changes from what was done in n-triples. 16:38:11 ... more changes anticipated. 16:38:26 ... that would be the subject of future PRs. 16:38:40 ack ora 16:38:43 ora: there has been substantial discsion on issues page. see no reason not to move forward. 16:38:51 ... anyone need any time to still look at this before it gets merged? 16:39:02 I'm happy with the workihg group taking up canonicalization issues. I would like to see a resolution that the working group is going to support this. 16:39:04 q+ 16:39:09 ... hearing no objections. 16:39:21 pfps: I would like to see a resolution that we can point back to that we decided to do this. 16:39:26 ... it is a substantial change. 16:39:27 ack pfps 16:39:29 q- 16:39:44 ora: you're saying we should make a resolution that we will work on c18n, then we can merge? 16:39:47 pfps: yes. 16:39:52 ora: any objections to that? 16:40:00 gkellogg_: make a proposed resolution. 16:40:15 PROPOSAL: the WG will work on c18n 16:40:17 +1 16:40:18 +1 16:40:19 +1 16:40:20 +1 16:40:20 +1 16:40:21 +1 16:40:22 +1 16:40:24 +1 16:40:27 +1 16:40:40 RESOLUTION: the WG will work on c18n 16:40:50 ora: now we can merge. 16:41:01 ... any others to discuss? 16:41:01 q+ 16:41:23 pfps: the first one (#8), item 27. 16:41:23 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/8 -> Action 8 [closed] test *again* ghurlbot configuration (on ) due 13 Jan 2023 16:41:30 ... I don't know what to do with this. 16:41:37 ... there are reasons to make change and also to not make a change. 16:41:43 ... it's a tiny change, but it's unclear the way to go. 16:41:48 ... I don't think it can be editorial. 16:41:56 ... need to think hard about waht the right thing to do is. 16:42:00 ora: not marked as editorial. 16:42:03 pfps: not marked as anything. 16:42:30 ora: we cannot resolve it today. it needs careful consideration. 16:42:58 ... the WG needs to discuss. I would prefer we give it a week for people to read, think. 16:43:05 ... people can bring objections/thoughts to next week's meeing. 16:43:14 pfps: I suggest that we try and push this onto an issue discussion. 16:43:37 ora: if it's here next week, and we've had discussion on mailing list, we can just rubber stamp it [at the next call] 16:44:12 ... it's in the minutes. let's have a mailing list discussion about it. we can fix it before next week. 16:44:26 pfps: I think that leaves json schema for SPARQL results. 16:44:31 ... I put "needs discussion". 16:44:35 ... not sure how substantive this change is. 16:44:51 ... I worry that even if the schema is informative, if it's incorrect it's a problem. 16:45:01 q+ 16:45:10 ... we could go to FPWD with something we're not sure is correct as long as we drop something in there to remind us. 16:45:16 ora: I'm find with that. 16:45:30 ack pfps 16:45:31 q+ 16:45:33 andys: I don't understand "it could be wrong." that could be true of anything in the spec. 16:45:41 ... not sure what is different here. we've had people look at it and test it. 16:45:47 ack afs 16:45:48 ... there's been outside input into the process. 16:46:09 ... I'm in favor of going forward with it. 16:46:24 pfps: this is machine interpretable information. 16:46:30 ... if outside eyes have looked at it, that's fine with me. 16:46:42 ... anything machine interpretable should have outside eyes on it. 16:46:50 ... and tests 16:46:51 q+ 16:46:58 ack pfps 16:47:06 ... if afs thinks it's had enough looks at it, then let's go ahead. 16:47:20 A reason to publish it as a draft is to get more eyes on it. 16:47:30 ack TallTed 16:47:52 TallTed: FPWD is a heartbeat. Just a thing to show we're doing work. Does not indicate group concensus. 16:48:00 q+ 16:48:04 ... does not have to mean anything. fine if there are errors. 16:48:14 ... getting more eyes on something is something any of us can request of any reviewer. 16:48:21 ... part of W3C process is broad review. 16:48:42 ... if there's somebody you know who would understand what we're doing and be able to highlight errors, that's great. bring them in. 16:48:51 ... do not have to be w3c members. 16:48:54 good point, I'll see if I can find someone who can look at the JSON Schema for SPARQL results 16:49:06 q+ 16:49:10 ack ora 16:49:26 ack ktk 16:49:29 ora: new public WD alerts people that something has happened, leading to more eyeballs. 16:49:37 ktk: already have eyeballs. 16:49:45 ... invited expert (?) already looked at this. 16:49:49 OK, I'm good with this PR 16:50:02 pfps: I'll see if I can find somebody. 16:50:25 ora: I'm willing to give this another week. 16:50:35 pfps: happy with this going through. will get help if necessary. 16:50:38 ora: ok. can merge this then. 16:50:58 ora: aob? 16:51:28 q+ 16:51:38 ktk: not enough time for draft process. 16:51:49 ... [in this call] 16:51:52 ack gkellogg_ 16:51:57 q+ 16:52:02 q+ 16:52:04 ack afs 16:52:06 gkellogg_: by the time we pick publication date, hopefully a matter of producing them and adding timestamps. 16:52:20 afs: I asked for this because some broken links. we can't fix them. external changes. 16:52:22 right sorry, that was afs, not pierre-antoine that requested this 16:52:35 ... I wanted to know for FPWD if we have to be absolutely clean for publication. 16:52:39 q+ 16:52:40 ... in the past, pubrules are an ideal. 16:52:59 gkellogg_: explanation for broken links is fine. has to satisfy director. 16:53:05 next agendum 16:53:21 ... links into our own specs show up as not resolving but it actually works. mechanical issues. 16:53:29 q+ to ask whether we can get some indication that our documents are ready to publish, i.e., pass most checks 16:53:44 ack pfps 16:53:44 pfps, you wanted to ask whether we can get some indication that our documents are ready to publish, i.e., pass most checks 16:53:48 afs: links into xml schema are broken. new overlay on document "this document has moved". breaks fragment. 16:53:54 zakim, item 5 16:53:54 I don't understand 'item 5', ktk 16:54:02 pfps: I would like to know as an editor if there's anything I need to do for FPWD. 16:54:12 gkellogg_: I've been running the link checker. will PR for any issues. 16:54:20 Zakim, open item 5 16:54:20 agendum 5 -- 5. Define "First Public Working Draft" (FPWD) process: -- taken up [from 4 via ktk] 16:54:24 pfps: if I'm an editor and there's no complaints in queue, I can assume everything is good? 16:54:27 gkellogg_: yes. 16:54:48 ack TallTed 16:54:59 afs: I followed instructions from gkellogg_. 16:55:07 pfps: I'll try and report back. 16:55:17 TallTed: we do not have to be squeaky clean for FPWD. not the same as a CR. 16:55:17 q+ 16:55:22 ack ktk 16:55:31 ktk: is this now solved? or on next week's agenda again? 16:55:40 afs: need to keep on the agenda. when staff contact is around. 16:55:49 ... with so many documents, lots ends up on his plate. 16:57:05 s/andys/afs/g 16:57:19 does that work across the entire document? or just the previous occurence? 16:57:43 RRSAgent, end meeting 16:57:43 I'm logging. I don't understand 'end meeting', ktk. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:57:48 with the trailing `g`, it should do all occurrences 16:57:55 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:57:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/30-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 16:57:58 nice! 16:58:00 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:59:10 regrets+ pchampin 16:59:16 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:59:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/30-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 16:59:29 btw it looks like there were no issues created from the ACTIONS I've added 16:59:32 did I forget something? 16:59:43 nope, process still processing 16:59:54 ah 17:00:07 Zakim, end meeting 17:00:07 As of this point the attendees have been gtw, ktk, gkellogg_, afs, AZ, pfps, ora, doerthe, TallTed 17:00:09 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:00:10 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/30-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim 17:00:17 I am happy to have been of service, TallTed; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:00:17 Zakim has left #rdf-star 17:00:33 thanks TallTed for all the help with the IRC bots 17:00:42 (and everything else) 17:00:47 RRSAgent, bye 17:00:47 I see 2 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2023/03/30-rdf-star-actions.rdf : 17:00:47 ACTION: ktk Clarify policy for merging PRs [1] 17:00:47 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2023/03/30-rdf-star-irc#T16-24-07 17:00:47 ACTION: ktk Create a policy on adding issue markers [2] 17:00:47 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2023/03/30-rdf-star-irc#T16-36-44 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/03/23-rdf-star-minutes.html next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/04/06-rdf-star-minutes.html s/Topic: RDF-star/meeting: RDF-star/ s|PR #9 for rdf-schema|PR rdf-schema#9 s|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/9 -> Issue 9 ambiguity of canonical N-Triples (pchampin)|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/issues/9 -> Pull Request 9 json datatype added (domel) needs discussion i|we don't have|Repo: w3c/rdf-star-wg i|some of these|Repo: w3c/rdf-star-wg s|(#8)|(rdf-schema#8) s|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/8 -> Action 8 [closed] test *again* ghurlbot configuration (on ) due 13 Jan 2023|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/issues/8 -> Pull Request 8 change range of rdf:predicate + small HTML fixes (domel) needs discussion