RDF-Star WG Weekly Meeting

Scribe: Zimmermann, Antoine (alternate: Hartig, Olaf )

olaf: I will be travelling the next two weeks so will not be able to scribe

Approval of last week's minutes: 1

<gtw> I am missing from regrets in last week's minutes.

<pfps> minutes look fine

<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes

<AZ> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<olaf> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<TallTed> +1

<rubensworks> +1

<afs> +1

<ora> +1

<enrico> +1

<pfps> +1

pchampin: Greg Williams is missing from the regrets in minutes

RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes

Review of open actions, available at 2

gkellogg: regarding #23 and #19 there is a PR that adds the notion of full and classic conformance

pchampin: no progress on my actions

Continuation "First Public Working Draft" (FPWD) process: 3

gkellogg: we should publish FPWD

<gkellogg> https://greggkellogg.net/rdf-respec/

gkellogg: we need to set up a publication date that we can target

ora: should we do only one date?

gkellogg: the can all be published
… we don't need to worry about the missing references

gkellogg: I believe we should publish all documents and essentially freeze, other than for changes needed for publication, targeting a publication date.

pchampin: we can aim for next Thursday

gkellogg: I won't be able to do it for next Thursday
… perhaps May 4th?

<TallTed> +1 target full boat of FPWDs for May 4

gkellogg: there's still things to do before having the documents ready, at least mine

<ora> PROPOSAL: Publish FPWDs on May 4th

afs: for SPARQL docs, query can be published too

<gkellogg> +1

<ora> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<pchampin> +1

<rubensworks> +1

<AZ> +1

<afs> +1

<olaf> +1

<TallTed> +1

<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask about freeze

<TallTed> suggest we also PROPOSE/RESOLVE to use echidna to auto-publish EDs thereafter

pfps: there PRs that have a lot of discussions

<pfps> +1 assuming that the only changes will be for FPWD process

pfps: what do we do with them?

gkellogg: editorial changes should be merged
… some of the other things may go in, on a case by case basis

<pfps> I worry that different documents will say different things

gkellogg: not everything need to be fixed for the drafts

RESOLUTION: Publish FPWDs on May 4th

pfps: there may be things in a doc that contradicts another doc

gkellogg: but they are just draft

<TallTed> PROPOSAL: set up echidna to auto-publish EDs of all docs as commits are made, going forward

<gkellogg> +1

<gtw> +1

<ora> +1

<pchampin> +1

<olaf> +1

<rubensworks> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<AZ> +1

<pfps> +1

<pfps> +1

<TallTed> +1

gkellogg: there is a nned to coordinate the updates

RESOLUTION: set up echidna to auto-publish EDs of all docs as commits are made, going forward

ACTION: pchampin to setup echidna in all GH repository

<ghurlbot> Created action #55

ora: is anyone going to WWW conf?

<pchampin> I am going

olaf: yes I do

Review of pull requests, available at 4

ora: pr w3c/sparql-protocol#13 will be left for next week

gkellogg: pr w3c/rdf-xml#22 is related to RDF/XML

w3c/rdf-xml#22

gkellogg: it relates to 8 different repos
… I have not merged Ted's suggestions about RDF/XML
… there might be some breaking changes if we change some things

TallTed: removing things that create misunderstanding is good
… there would not be problems with 6-letters file extension

ora: we would deprecate the .rdf extension

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3870

gkellogg: RDF/XML is the only format which is its own RFC
… we could keep things the way they are

ora: a use case for RDF/XML is the XMP metadata

afs: there are other cases where RDF/XML is used

gkellogg: we can keep RDF/XML, even if it will not have support for quoted triples
… let us maintain the status quo
… we do not need to worry about the Macintosh file type

TallTed: Mac file type is "almost" obsolete, still used a bit

ora: there is no reason to remove things, we can add a new extension instead, but be careful about legacy

afs: I'm still not ok changing file extension
… it is too widespread on the web

TallTed: it is misguiding people into thinking that RDF means .rdf files means RDF/XML
… a better extension will benefit everyone

gkellogg: 1st suggestion: replace wording for mime-type
… 2nd suggestion: .rdfxml become preferred file extension
… and we don't change the Mac file code

afs: we should consider .rdfx
… as it is a common practice to add x for XML-based formats

w3c/sparql-results-xml#19

rubensworks: pr w3c/sparql-results-xml#19 incorporates quoted triples into SPARQL XML result format

afs: are there any alternative proposals?

RRSAgent: not that I am aware of

gkellogg: quoted triples is part of the fundamental concepts
… quoted triples in SPARQL results should be added

<pfps> I am uncomfortable about progressing with WG discussion on the basic idea, but I'm not going to protest.

ora: it seems this could be merged

rubensworks: we may need to discuss this in relation to the equivalent in SPARQL results in different formats

ora: it's a substentive change, so I would like to leave it for one more week

TallTed: we can take a temporary resolution and wait a week for reactions

<TallTed> PROPOSED: We will merge https://github.com/w3c/sparql-results-json/pull/19/ after modification to show examples both with and without quoted triples, and this will be our way forward (barring objection by April 27)

<AZ> +1

<ora> +1

<TallTed> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<rubensworks> +1

<pfps> +0

<afs> +1

<olaf> +1

<pchampin> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<gtw> +1

RESOLUTION: We will merge https://github.com/w3c/sparql-results-json/pull/19/ after modification to show examples both with and without quoted triples, and this will be our way forward (barring objection by April 27)

rubensworks: we can propose the same for XML results

w3c/rdf-concepts#32

ora: I support doing both

gkellogg: pr w3c/rdf-concepts#32 for concepts is about the concept of quoted triples

<afs> afs: Concerned about remarks from gkellogg about "additional terminology"

gkellogg: there were some issues regarding terminology, now the only change is addition of quoted/asserted triples
… there were also wordings about classic and full conformance
… it is important that we have the terminology for these
… now we only add the terms quoted triples and asserted triples

afs: the changes are also affecting other things

afs: can we prioritise use cases for next week

<pchampin> +1

+1

<enrico> +1

<enrico> +1

<ora> +1

<enrico> +1

<enrico> +1

<enrico> +1

pfps: we need an approval for the TF to proceed
… hopefully it does not need to take much time

<TallTed> +1

<gkellogg> Regrets for next week's meeting.

<olaf> Regrets from my side for next week as well (and most likely even for the week after).

<ghurlbot> Issue 32 [not found]