RDF-star WG weekly meeting

<pchampin> ghurlbot, status

<ghurlbot> pchampin, the delay is 15, issues are on, names are on, commands are ignored from RRSAgent and Zakim; and the repository is w3c/rdf-star-wg

<ktk> ah didn't notice

<pchampin> agenda

Approval of last week's minutes: 1

<pfps> minutes look fine to me

ora: any comments on last weeks minutes?
… hearing none

<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes

<ora> +1

<pchampin> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<ktk> +1

+1

<pfps> +1

<TallTed> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes

TPAC 2023 attendance

<pchampin> https://www.w3.org/2023/09/TPAC/

pchampin: TPAC is the big yearly meeting for W3C

<ktk> :-D

pchampin: good opportunity to meet in the flesh
… in Sevilla, in Spain this year

<afs> 11–15 September

pchampin: if enough people want to come we can let the organization know we want to come
… it will take place September 11-15
… people can come for a limited period of time
… it should be possible to have a hybrid meeting, if we decide to have a session during TPAC

<pfps> It is unlikely that I would go (as no one is paying for my trips), but I could connect (even European time).

<TallTed> I am unlikely to be able to travel. I should be able to attend by screen.

<ora> Strawpoll: Anyone thinking of attending TPAC?

<pchampin> +1

<ktk> +1

<TallTed> -0.9

<ora> +0.75

<Dominik_T> +0.25

<pfps> -0.9 for in person, I would probably connect (and connect for the plenary if that is possible)

<afs> 50/50 attending in person

<Doerthe> +0 (need to ask financial support first)

afs: it gonna be a good idea to have longer session to get through the backlog

ora: I agree, long meetings can be incredibly productive

ora: there are a lots of "regrets" so we should put that on the mailing list and decide next week
… any other thoughts?

<Timothe> s/andy:/afs:/

<pchampin> ghurlbot, help

<ghurlbot> pchampin, I am a bot to look up and create GitHub issues and

<ghurlbot> … action items. I am an instance of GHURLBot 0.3.

<ghurlbot> … Try "ghurlbot, help commands" or

<ghurlbot> … see https://w3c.github.io/GHURLBot/manual.html

Status of "First Public Working Draft" (FPWD)

<afs> ghurlbot, AndyS is afs

pchampin: trying to make progress on my actions, and I realized that I could not do the ??? request, but I'll do that after the meeting.

<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to comment on working with ReSpec

pchampin: we are in pretty good shape. I tested all the RDF- tests and they passed

pfps: I get bot messages because of broken links
… and I'm still having pains about how respec works, I need some help
… emails are not really productive

pchampin: I understand, that's an issue.

pfps: I find it difficult to ask for help before we are doing deprecated things

<pfps> the deprecated things I see are data-cite, which I believe was added in the conversion to ReSpec

pchampin: we can get rid of them progressively. That's inherited from the old docs and old habits.
… one way to get faster response is to try on IRC
… if you mention me by name I should be notified and react

<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask about blocking changes

ora: Peter are you problem blockers?

pfps: I don't know. I think to remember broken links are a blocker
… and one issue is that people request changes on PR and become not responsive. Is there a way of overriding this unresponsiveness?

afs: you can ping them
… pfps: and its hard to know what PR needs attention
… in that case pchampin is blocking

pchampin: I'm sorry I have a large backlog. In that kind of cases IRC might also be a solution to contact me

TallTed: if you can highlight issues are hanging around that would help

Use case proposal by Peter: 2

<pfps> The basic idea is to generate use cases that have sufficient information to determine whether the results of the working group support the use case. All else is just details.

<ghurlbot> Issue 57 [not found]

<pfps> At this point what is needed is two approvals by the working group - one to proceed in upgrading existing use cases and soliciting new ones and one to actually make use of the use cases.

pfps: the basic idea, it is really helpful to have use case to figure out if we are doing the right thing. The rest is details.
… there is a repo, if we are using wiki or issues is details

<ghurlbot> Action 18 coordinate on proposed resolution on FPWD (on pchampin) due 16 Feb 2023

<pfps> Upgrading use cases will take significant effort so a resolution to do something with them is desirable.

pfps: its pointless to do this is the WG is not planning to do something with the use cases.

<pfps> PROPOSED: Use cases will be used to help direct the technical actions of the working group.

<pfps> PROPOSED: The use case task force will upgrade existing use cases in conjunction with use case proposers and solicit new use cases.

pfps: here is one proposal: the WG commits to doing something with the use cases

<TallTed> "UCR" == "Use Cases and Requirements". In theory, the former drive the latter, which then drive the specs.

pfps: another proposal: the use case task force commit to upgrading those use cases so the WG can do something with them

ora: the first is a bit vague, its not telling me what I have to do

<pfps> PROPOSED: The working group will select use cases and ensure that quoted triples will solve these selected use cases.

pfps: its a little bit hard to be more specific, because who knows what shape the use case will have. I don't want to require uses cases to have the exact same information
… I don't want the use case to be too unspecific either

TallTed: should be a fairly detailed description of what needs to be done that can not be acheive easily with current RDF

ora: so far it sounds fine, I could agree. Should we have a standing item in the agenda about that?

pfps: its not like every week we are going to discuss a use case

pfps: we could have issues that are given tags that show up in the dashboard

ktk: we should have a common understanding of what is a good use case

afs: there is a task force for the use cases

pfps: we didn't meet yet because we don't have any use case to discuss
… getting help from the other TF would be nice

enrico: what is the problem here? We are unable to find one use case. Why is that?

ktk: I could not find one use case that I could not do another way.

pfps: that the purpose of the use case TF

TallTed: anyone who claims to have implemented RDF-star is wrong. Because there is no RDF-star yet. They have implemented a thing that we are not going to standardize.
… then we should not have any fear of implementing something different from the paper

<pchampin> several people have implemented the CG version, and passed the test suite, though

TallTed: the paper from Olaf
… those people should have joined the group. They still can and be welcome.

ora: I agree. That's what I've been telling. If you have implemented RDF-star you are on shaky grounds.
… we should implement this the way we see fit
… I've collecting use cases for (AWS) OneGraph Next week I will submit the one relative to RDF-star

<afs> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/reports/

<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to say that reaching out for use cases will include a suggestion to join the WG

pchampin: agree that many implementation rely on the old paper, they have sometime different interpretation of the paper. Some other people have been looking looking at the CG report and are willing to evolve their implementation. I've said before that we should not break all the current implementations. Its not all black or white.

ktk: I've found some implementors, even if they are not in the WG we could contact them to see if they have some concrete use cases

ora: wanted to suggest the same thing

ora: let's reach out to as many such vendors as we can
… If you are not participating but implementing I feel like you are undermining the W3C process

TallTed: ourselves tend not to implement until the end of the W3C process

<pfps> can we get to a resolution before time runs out?

pfps: I need a resolution before we can do anything here

<pfps> PROPOSED: The working group will select use cases and ensure that quoted triples will solve these selected use cases.

<ora> +1

<pchampin> +1

<pfps> +1

<afs> +1

<ktk> +1

<gtw> +1

+1

<Doerthe> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<TallTed> +1

RESOLUTION: The working group will select use cases and ensure that quoted triples will solve these selected use cases.

<enrico> +1

<pfps> PROPOSED: The use case task force will upgrade existing use cases in conjunction with use case proposers and solicit new use cases.

<pfps> +1

<ora> +1

<pchampin> +1

<TallTed> +1

<ktk> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<Doerthe> +1

+1

<enrico> +1

<afs> +0.9

RESOLUTION: The use case task force will upgrade existing use cases in conjunction with use case proposers and solicit new use cases.

pfps: the TF could be able to accept so "proto-use cases"

<afs> +1

AOB

afs: there is one issue I want to highlight

<afs> w3c/rdf-concepts#9 (comment)

afs: I would like to get a design together. It is going to affect many documents.

ora: would you like us to put it on the agenda for next week?

afs: this is clearly a change to RDF. So yes I think we need to discuss it and formally agree.

TallTed: you said it is internationalization but the issue title is text direction. It should be renamed then.

afs: it's not my issue so I won't change the title. The issue is labeled so that will grab the attention of the internationalization group.