15:56:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:56:56 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/04/06-rdf-star-irc
15:56:56 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:56:57 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
15:57:08 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star WG weekly meeting
15:57:14 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
15:57:30 <rubensworks> rubensworks has joined #rdf-star
15:57:34 <pchampin> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/03/30-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:57:49 <pchampin> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/04/13-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:58:09 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
15:59:12 <pchampin> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f2add3af-6743-4f52-8fcc-4f62c6cdd8af/20230406T120000
15:59:13 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:59:13 <agendabot> agenda+ Scribe: Thibodeau, Ted (alternate: Zimmermann, Antoine)
15:59:13 <agendabot> agenda+ Approval of last week's minutes:  -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2023/03/30-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:59:13 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion and vote on chairs' process proposal on PRs (forthcoming)
15:59:14 <agendabot> agenda+ Review of open actions, available at  -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3
15:59:17 <agendabot> agenda+ Review of pull requests, available at  -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4
15:59:20 <agendabot> agenda+ Define "First Public Working Draft" (FPWD) process:  -> 4 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Mar/0121.html
15:59:24 <agendabot> agenda+ Use case proposal by Peter:  -> 5 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Mar/0100.html
15:59:27 <agendabot> agenda+ Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting Next week's scribe: Zimmermann, Antoine
16:00:00 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:01:15 <pchampin> present+
16:01:22 <rubensworks> scribe+
16:01:23 <ora> present+
16:01:35 <pfps> present+
16:01:42 <rubensworks> present+
16:01:45 <gkellogg> present+
16:02:18 <pchampin> regrets+ Gregg Williams
16:02:56 <rubensworks> Enrico: Meeting for tomorrow will be canceled.
16:03:03 <pchampin> present+ TallTed
16:03:24 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
16:03:25 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-star
16:03:32 <enrico> present+
16:03:33 <AZ> present+
16:03:55 <pchampin> regrets+ Adrian Gschwen
16:03:59 <rubensworks> ora: Next up: approval of last week's minutes.
16:04:03 <pchampin> Zakim, open item 1
16:04:03 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Scribe: Thibodeau, Ted (alternate: Zimmermann, Antoine) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:04:09 <pchampin> Zakim, open item 2
16:04:09 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Approval of last week's minutes:  -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2023/03/30-rdf-star-minutes.html -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:04:10 <pfps> minutes look fine to me
16:04:14 <pchampin> q+
16:04:28 <pfps> (except for a typo or two that don't need attention)
16:04:28 <ora> ack pchampin
16:04:48 <rubensworks> pchampin: I did a small fix in the minutes. Some links to GH were incorrect.
16:05:08 <rubensworks> ... I will add some information on how the bot works.
16:05:18 <pchampin> #1
16:05:44 <afs> present+
16:05:46 <gkellogg> #48
16:05:49 <pchampin> #23
16:06:01 <pchampin> ghurlbot, status
16:06:01 <ghurlbot> pchampin, the delay is 15, issues are on, names are on; and no repositories are specified.
16:06:15 <rubensworks> ... If we mention an open action, this should be recognized by the bot. But it appears to not work now.
16:06:26 <pchampin> ghurlbot, help
16:06:27 <ghurlbot> pchampin, I am a bot to look up and create GitHub issues and
16:06:27 <ghurlbot> … action items. I am an instance of GHURLBot 0.3.
16:06:27 <ghurlbot> … Try "ghurlbot, help commands" or
16:06:27 <ghurlbot> … see https://w3c.github.io/GHURLBot/manual.html
16:06:32 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
16:06:46 <Dominik_T> present+
16:06:56 <pchampin> ghurlbot, use w3c/rdf-star-wg
16:06:56 <ghurlbot> pchampin, OK.
16:07:01 <pchampin> #23
16:07:01 <ghurlbot> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/23 -> Action 23 work on conformance proposal (on Antoine-Zimmermann) due 23 Feb 2023
16:07:22 <rubensworks> pchampin: If we mention a number, the bot will find it in the default repo, and mention it.
16:07:27 <pchampin> rdf-schema#9
16:07:27 <ghurlbot> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/issues/9 -> Pull Request 9 json datatype added (domel) needs discussion
16:07:42 <rubensworks> ... If we want to mention another repo, we can do so as well.
16:08:07 <rubensworks> ... Hopefully this improves the minutes in the future.
16:08:34 <ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes
16:08:40 <pchampin> +1
16:08:41 <rubensworks> +1
16:08:41 <ora> +1
16:08:42 <Dominik_T> +1
16:08:48 <gkellogg> +1
16:08:54 <afs> +1
16:09:04 <pfps> +1
16:09:11 <AZ> +1
16:09:18 <enrico> +1
16:09:23 <ora> RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes
16:09:33 <pchampin> zakim, open next item
16:09:33 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Scribe: Thibodeau, Ted (alternate: Zimmermann, Antoine) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:09:43 <pchampin> zakim, open item 3
16:09:43 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Discussion and vote on chairs' process proposal on PRs (forthcoming) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:10:00 <ora> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Apr/0014.html
16:10:02 <rubensworks> ora: I tried to articulate what the rules for PRs could be.
16:10:07 <pchampin> s|agendum 1 -- Scribe: Thibodeau, Ted (alternate: Zimmermann, Antoine) -- taken up [from agendabot]||
16:10:19 <pfps> Policy looks fine to me as long as the labels are applied conservatively.
16:10:21 <rubensworks> ... Any thoughts or comments?
16:10:37 <pfps> It should also be possible resolve needs discussion through email or GH discussion.
16:10:38 <gkellogg> q+
16:11:04 <rubensworks> ... Should we state explicitly if something requires discussion?
16:11:22 <pchampin> ack gkellogg
16:11:26 <gkellogg> q-
16:11:33 <pfps> Agreed - as long as there is some approval for a substantive change, the change can go through without discussion.
16:12:22 <rubensworks> pfps: Substantive changes being covered don't need discussion. If everyone agrees, remove the discussion label.
16:12:32 <rubensworks> ... There are some grey areas in labels.
16:12:34 <pchampin> +1 to resolve 'need-discussion' offline when possible
16:12:44 <gkellogg> My comment was that substantive changes where the discussion would be the same as another approved substantive change don't  necessarily require discussion.
16:13:00 <pchampin> q+
16:13:01 <rubensworks> ... Descriptions you see are poor. gkellogg has better descriptions for labels.
16:13:08 <ora> q+
16:13:14 <ora> ack pchampin
16:13:21 <rubensworks> pchampin: Descriptions should be consistent across repos.
16:13:29 <rubensworks> ... I can easily update them.
16:13:48 <ora> ack ora
16:14:13 <rubensworks> ora: I find it good and ironic that we have so much control over the control vocabulary, considering our group.
16:14:30 <rubensworks> ora: Should we go over all labels?
16:14:43 <rubensworks> pfps: Would be good to put it in a wiki. No need to discuss it further.
16:14:57 <rubensworks> ora: Someone needs to collect this in a wiki page.
16:15:01 <gkellogg> q+
16:15:19 <rubensworks> ... I propose that we accept the rules in my email as a way to go forward with PRs.
16:15:19 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:15:43 <ora> q+
16:15:52 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Every repo allows you to check label definitions, so we may not need another wiki page, as they are getting out of hand. Wikis are unwieldy.
16:15:56 <ora> ack ora
16:16:06 <rubensworks> ora: Those definitions now match?
16:16:16 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Once pchampin does his magic, they will.
16:16:31 <ora> q+
16:16:57 <rubensworks> pchampin: I suggest to reflect gkellogg's definitions, as they are better than mine.
16:17:02 <ora> ack ora
16:17:06 <pfps> Fine by me.
16:17:08 <rubensworks> ... I also don't see the benefit to also copying this to a wiki page.
16:17:15 <rubensworks> ora: We should have single source of truth.
16:17:29 <rubensworks> ... To avoid it getting out of hand again.
16:17:36 <ora> q?
16:18:01 <rubensworks> TallTedd: I'm looking at an open issue, and the tooltip of the label, but they are truncated, where is the full view?
16:18:05 <gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/labels
16:18:14 <rubensworks> gkellogg: You can go to issues > labels, and view the descriptions.
16:18:31 <rubensworks> TallTedd: So they can not be seen on specific issues.
16:18:35 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
16:18:43 <gkellogg> q+
16:19:08 <rubensworks> ora: Then we just need to ensure that they remain in sync across repos.
16:19:17 <rubensworks> gkellogg: We can probably trim in the labels we have.
16:19:40 <rubensworks> ... We can have a non-wiki file to drive the tooling to sync labels.
16:19:52 <rubensworks> pchampin: I have such a file, so I can share it.
16:20:10 <rubensworks> ora: So if there is disagreement, that file serves as source of truth.
16:20:15 <gkellogg> q-
16:20:16 <pchampin> action: pchampin to put in the repo the "source of truth" for labels
16:20:24 <ghurlbot> Created -> action #49 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/49
16:20:36 <rubensworks> ora: I like us to agree on our PR merging rules.
16:21:16 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Some issues are enhanc or substantive, and if they are not discussed, they can only be merged in the next meeting.
16:21:28 <rubensworks> ora: We go one meeting cycle before merging.
16:21:31 <rubensworks> gkellogg: I agree.
16:21:46 <ora> PROPOSAL: Adopt Ora's proposal for PR merging: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Apr/0014.html
16:21:50 <rubensworks> +1
16:21:50 <ora> +1
16:21:53 <pchampin> +1
16:21:53 <afs> +1
16:21:54 <Dominik_T> +1
16:22:06 <gkellogg> +1
16:22:23 <pfps> +1
16:22:24 <AZ> +°1
16:22:25 <enrico> +1
16:22:34 <ora> RESOLUTION: Adopt Ora's proposal for PR merging: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Apr/0014.html
16:22:44 <pchampin> zakim, open item 4
16:22:44 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Review of open actions, available at  -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:23:30 <rubensworks> ora: I think creation policy issue marker is the same as the one for merging PRs.
16:23:31 <pfps> q+
16:23:36 <rubensworks> ... So it's complete.
16:23:46 <ora> ack pfps
16:24:22 <rubensworks> pfps: I worry that issues can come up and be resolved without WG oversight.
16:25:11 <rubensworks> ... For example: RDF JSON datatype that affects multiple documents. I would mark it as substantive change.
16:25:19 <rubensworks> ... We should not be able to get into such a situation.
16:25:39 <rubensworks> ora: You noticed it, and brought it up, and can mark it as requiring discussion.
16:25:44 <gkellogg> q+
16:25:55 <rubensworks> pfps: But if it's considered editorial, oversight window is too small.
16:26:05 <rubensworks> ora: These things can be reverted if needed.
16:26:30 <rubensworks> pfps: Ok, but I would ask people to be considerate in their labeling.
16:26:43 <rubensworks> ... Many things are truly editorial, but many straddle the line.
16:27:06 <rubensworks> ... Another example is the documents getting many more normative references.
16:27:25 <rubensworks> ... We should avoid this if they are non-normative.
16:27:26 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:27:40 <rubensworks> ... We should be more conservative in marking things editorial.
16:27:54 <rubensworks> gkellogg: RDF JSON is editorial.
16:28:11 <rubensworks> ... The other one is enhancement.
16:28:43 <rubensworks> ... Normative vs informative: there was some email exchange, and should be up to the editor to choose.
16:29:01 <pfps> q+
16:29:07 <rubensworks> pfps: I agree with gkellogg
16:29:09 <ora> ack pfps
16:29:15 <rubensworks> ... This just a warning.
16:29:19 <ora> q+
16:29:40 <ora> ack ora
16:29:43 <rubensworks> ... All editors should go through their documents to check if all are still correct.
16:30:32 <pfps> I'm OK with the current situation now.
16:30:37 <rubensworks> ora: Mistakes can happen, but can also be reverted. I think we all understand, and can go forward. I have faith that we can handle this now. Let's go forward with the rules as we understand them.
16:30:41 <pchampin> q?
16:31:33 <pchampin> zakim, open item 5
16:31:34 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Review of pull requests, available at  -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:32:07 <gkellogg> q+
16:32:09 <rubensworks> ora: 3 PRs require discussion. Who wants to start?
16:32:13 <AZ> q+
16:32:14 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:32:21 <rubensworks> gkellogg: We discussed rdf:JSON
16:32:35 <rubensworks> ... RDF schema change should be consistent with that, and issue marker.
16:32:52 <rubensworks> ... We should still decide to go forward with rdf:JSON datatype, but no need to get into that.
16:33:05 <rubensworks> ... We should discuss on adding an issue marker.
16:33:29 <pfps> OK, but it would be useful to add the discussion about rdf:JSON to some upcoming group meeting
16:33:41 <rubensworks> ... It's more of an enhancement at this point. Are we taking on the work to add rdf:JSON datatype? Because it has impact on semantics.
16:33:53 <rubensworks> ... We need to discuss this at some point.
16:33:59 <ora> ack AZ
16:34:23 <rubensworks> AZ: The change to the range to rdf:predicate is not consistent with the RDF semantics.
16:34:37 <pchampin> q+
16:34:44 <pfps> q+
16:34:46 <rubensworks> ... The semantics says that range is rdf:Resource, and change proposes to say in RDF schema that range is rdf:Property.
16:35:00 <rubensworks> ... And we should follow RDF semantics, which is normative.
16:35:06 <ora> ack pchampin
16:35:10 <pfps> Good point on RDF Semantics
16:35:17 <rubensworks> pchampin: There was a discussion on mailinglist on this point.
16:35:32 <rubensworks> ... Result was that it should not be a change to rdf:Property.
16:35:42 <rubensworks> ... Good that we reached same conclusions.
16:35:50 <rubensworks> ... I commented this on the change.
16:36:06 <rubensworks> ... The change would be purely editorial.
16:36:09 <ora> ack pfps
16:36:16 <rubensworks> pfps: I agree.
16:36:28 <rubensworks> ora: PR can be merged?
16:36:38 <rubensworks> pchampin: Not until my suggested change is integrated.
16:36:55 <rubensworks> pchampin: This may have already happened.
16:37:09 <rubensworks> Dominik_T: I just accepted the proposal.
16:37:26 <rubensworks> ora: No more discussion on this needed?
16:37:30 <pfps> Fine by me
16:37:47 <rubensworks> pchampin: Mark it as editorial.
16:38:42 <rubensworks> gkellogg: I suggest that this be changed to be consistent with other issue marker.
16:39:00 <pfps> It would be useful to have something that both changes can point to.
16:39:25 <pfps> q+
16:39:36 <pfps> q-
16:40:03 <rubensworks> Dominik_T: If you gkellogg have time, please do it.
16:40:32 <rubensworks> ora: All editorial PRs can now be merged.
16:40:50 <gkellogg> q+
16:40:50 <rubensworks> ... 2 substantive changes, implies we discuss them.
16:41:16 <rubensworks> gkellogg: One is n-quads, one in n-triples. First removes remaining bits to normalization ... literals.
16:41:28 <rubensworks> ... Previous text limited text on characters.
16:41:31 <pchampin> rdf-n-quads/#27
16:41:31 <ghurlbot> https://github.com/rdf-n-quads//issues/27 -> #27
16:41:42 <pchampin> rdf-n-quads#27
16:41:42 <ghurlbot> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-quads/issues/27 -> Pull Request 27 Update the use of ECHAR and UCHAR in canonical N-Quads. (gkellogg) spec:substantive
16:41:45 <rubensworks> ... Would be better to have those characters be escaped.
16:41:59 <rubensworks> ... Canonicalization has done a lot of discussion around this already.
16:42:15 <rubensworks> ... We should also review n-quads document.
16:42:27 <rubensworks> ... n-triples issue, should make it consistent with n-quads.
16:42:33 <pchampin> rdf-n-triples#19
16:42:34 <ghurlbot> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/issues/19 -> Pull Request 19 Updates canonical N-Triples to be consistent with N-Quads. (gkellogg) spec:substantive
16:42:44 <pchampin> s|rdf-n-quads/#27||
16:42:49 <rubensworks> ... We are repeating ourselves across these documents, so maybe we should solve this, but standing on their own is also good.
16:42:52 <pchampin> s|https://github.com/rdf-n-quads//issues/27 -> #27||
16:42:53 <ghurlbot> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/27 -> Action 27 [closed] present a use case process to the working group (on pfps) due  9 Mar 2023
16:43:02 <rubensworks> n-triples should be equivalent to n-quads, without graph name.
16:43:20 <pfps> The working group has resolved to do this work https://www.w3.org/2023/03/30-rdf-star-minutes.html#r02
16:43:42 <rubensworks> ... It's useful that n-quads document is comprehensive, but we can add a note saying that it is consistent with n-triples.
16:43:50 <rubensworks> ora: I like that. Can you add that note.
16:43:53 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Yes
16:44:06 <afs> +1 to standalone documents for this matter.
16:44:21 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Because we discussed it, can we merge? Or wait another week?
16:44:47 <ora> ack afs
16:44:51 <rubensworks> ora: We should still wait for people not in this meeting. So we wait one cycle.
16:45:02 <gkellogg> ack gkellogg
16:45:11 <pchampin> q+
16:45:39 <ora> ack pchampin
16:46:22 <pfps> q+ to mention that editors should keep up to date on PR for their documents
16:46:36 <ora> ack pfps
16:46:36 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to mention that editors should keep up to date on PR for their documents
16:47:15 <gkellogg> q+
16:47:45 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:47:46 <rubensworks> gkellogg: I am only editor on RDF/XML.
16:48:04 <rubensworks> ... Problematic for all editors to agree.
16:48:07 <rubensworks> ora: Makes it simple.
16:48:09 <pfps> if you are the only editor then you are free to disagee with yourself
16:48:18 <rubensworks> gkellogg: I appreciate if people look at it.
16:48:33 <pchampin> agenda?
16:48:43 <pchampin> zakim, open item 6
16:48:43 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Define "First Public Working Draft" (FPWD) process:  -> 4 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Mar/0121.html -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:49:43 <rubensworks> afs: We were scheduled for FPWD end or March. What is the process?
16:50:00 <rubensworks> pchampin: To get it published, we need to make a transition req to W3C webmasters.
16:50:06 <rubensworks> ... We need to prepare a static version.
16:50:13 <rubensworks> ... without all JS stuff.
16:50:34 <gkellogg> publication_snapshots/FPWD
16:50:37 <rubensworks> ... We can create a folder fpwd/ where this static html is created.
16:50:55 <rubensworks> ... exporting this with the right parameter changes the status.
16:51:01 <rubensworks> ... We need to decide on a date.
16:51:08 <ora> q+
16:51:09 <rubensworks> ... I make the transition request to webmasters.
16:51:16 <ora> ack ora
16:51:24 <rubensworks> ora: This is on a per-spec basis?
16:51:37 <rubensworks> pchampin: We don't have to do all at once.
16:51:39 <gkellogg> q+
16:51:52 <rubensworks> ... We could also do a group transition request, but there is no requirement.
16:52:05 <rubensworks> ... We could train on one or a few specs.
16:52:07 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:52:09 <pfps> q+ to ask about inter-document references
16:52:11 <rubensworks> ora: We can try on one first
16:52:22 <rubensworks> gkellogg: I don't know if we need to wait for everything to be perfect.
16:52:31 <rubensworks> ... RDF concepts is a good one to start with.
16:52:40 <rubensworks> ... Once it's published, it can be referenced.
16:52:54 <afs> q+
16:53:00 <rubensworks> ... Local bib references can be removed.
16:53:22 <ora> ack pfps
16:53:22 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask about inter-document references
16:53:26 <rubensworks> ... I would like to get all out close together, or at the same time.
16:53:34 <rubensworks> pfps: I think we have reference loops between docs.
16:53:45 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Once they are published, not a problem.
16:54:04 <rubensworks> pfps: If concepts refers semantics, this should be published at same time?
16:54:15 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Until we update local bib references, this won't be a problem.
16:54:22 <rubensworks> ... Acceptable for FPWD.
16:54:24 <afs> q-
16:54:34 <rubensworks> ... We should minimize time between doing this.
16:54:56 <rubensworks> ... Good to prepare them all for publication.
16:55:13 <rubensworks> ... And perhaps only published subset that are acceptable./
16:55:35 <rubensworks> pchampin: Echidna allows us to publish new WD when pushing to main branch.
16:55:45 <rubensworks> ... Allows WD to remain up-to-date.
16:55:58 <rubensworks> ... Refers to current state, not necessarily concensus.
16:56:21 <rubensworks> ... We need a group decision to set this up.
16:56:38 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Let's discuss further via email.
16:56:57 <rubensworks> gkellogg: You can specify pubdate as query parameter.
16:57:11 <rubensworks> afs: Doesn't change filename, but what is in the doc.
16:57:19 <rubensworks> ora: Let's continue via email.
16:58:07 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:58:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/06-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
16:58:49 <afs> zakim, please excuse us
16:58:49 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been pchampin, ora, pfps, rubensworks, gkellogg, TallTed, enrico, AZ, afs, Dominik_T, °1
16:58:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
16:59:21 <afs> rrsagent, please excuse us
16:59:21 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2023/04/06-rdf-star-actions.rdf :
16:59:21 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pchampin to put in the repo the "source of truth" for labels [1]
16:59:21 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2023/04/06-rdf-star-irc#T16-20-16
16:59:24 <ghurlbot> Created -> action #50 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/50
<pchampin> s/, °1//
<pchampin> s|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/27 -> Action 27 [closed] present a use case process to the working group (on pfps) due  9 Mar 2023||
<pchampin> s|Created -> action #50 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/50||
<pchampin> i|gkellogg: We discussed rdf:JSON|Subtopic: rdf:JSON datatype
<pchampin> i|Zakim, open item 2|TallTed unable to scribe, rubenswork volunteers
<pchampin> i|gkellogg: One is n-quads|Subtopic: 2 outstanding substantive PRs on n-quads and n-triples
<pchampin> i|ora: 3 PRs require|repo: w3c/rdf-star-wg