Meeting minutes
Scribe: Thibodeau, Ted (alternate: Kellogg, Gregg)
Approval of last week's minutes: 1
<rubensworks> https://
pfps:
<gkellogg> s/icorrect/incorrect/
<ora> proposal: Approve last week's minutes
<ora> +1
0
<AZ> +0 (I was not present)
<pfps> +0 ditto
<TallTed> +1
<Tpt> +1
<rubensworks> +1
<enrico> +1
<Souri> +1
TallTed: Standard practice is that resolutions are pending until the next meeting.
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes
Review of open actions, available at 2
ora: Should we revisit compliance?
… I think we can close #23, which is a duplicate of #19
<gb> Action 23 work on conformance proposal (on Antoine-Zimmermann) due 23 Feb 2023
ora: most comments are in #19. If people are happy with that, what do we do?
<TallTed> +1 close #23 as duplicate of #19
AZ: I'm not sure exactly, but among the two possibilities, we define a subset of RDF and give it a name.
… When you want to conform to RDF 1.2 you can conform to one or the other.
… Or, we could define "partial" and "full" conformance.
… People want to have a name for this subset profile.
… We should explicitly define this profile.
pfps: I see a lot of discussion, but we're at the point where if there was a proposal, it could go on an agenda for the next meeting and vote on it.
… I'd like to see a single document with something we can vote on.
TallTed: I'm concerned that a lot of discussion is coming from someone who's not a member of the WG.
… Substantive contributions are not allowed from outside the WG, and he is neither one.
… A lot of what he is saying would result in substantive content.
ora: The IP issue is real.
TallTed: I think the contributions have value, although are challenging.
ora: I'm wondering if we should re-consider his desire to become an IE?
TallTed: It's possible to raise points from external contributors, which could be useful.
ora: I'd like to avoid a problem that when we're done there is a lot of negative feedback.
… Let's discuss these things and come up with a position on them so that we can point back to it in the future.
TallTed: That has worked well in the past, although it may require a hearing with the director.
<Zakim> AZ, you wanted to say that this discussion is important but it deviates and is broader than the issue of conformance
AZ: This discussion is broader than the conformance part, as opinions are wider than this. There are other external contributors voicing strong opinions.
ora: I think we need to have a concrete proposal on conformance for next week.
… We also need to come up with a way to handle the other comments.
<pfps> yes, conformance levels don't seem to interact with the named graph (and similar things) relationship
ora: We need to have a discussion on other substantial comments, which would at least leave a record that it was discussed.
pfps: Conformance levels is something different than discussions about named graphs and other related issues.
<AZ> +1 to what pfps said
ora: We could have a conformance proposal before concluding discussion about named graphs and so forth.
pfps: I'll check to see if we have an issue on named graphs, and create one if not.
<TallTed> Deciding on what the conformance labels are probably doesn't require that we first define which features go under which label.
pfps: There is an issue, w3c/rdf-concepts#46
<gb> Issue 46 Why quoted triples, when we already have named graphs? (lars-hellstrom)
ora: We have to have that discussion.
pfps: if the discussion ends up somewhere else, we should push it back to that issue.
AZ: I don't have much availability to work on proposals before the end of August.
… I can do little things asynchronously, but can't participate in the next four of five meetings. I can review proposals.
ora: I'll try to put together a proposal for next time.
ora: we established that #19 and #23 were the same thing, so we should vote on that.
<gb> Action 23 work on conformance proposal (on Antoine-Zimmermann) due 23 Feb 2023
<AZ> Let's close issue #23!
ora: without objection, we can close #23.
close #23
<gb> Closed action #23
ora: other actions are for pchampin who sent regrets.
Review of pull requests, available at 3
<Souri> The above links returns 404
ora: still no answer to w3c/rdf-semantics#30
<gb> Pull Request 30 improve display on mobile phones (domel) needs discussion
gkellogg: awiating feedback from I18N on w3c/rdf-concepts#48.
<gkellogg> On w3c/rdf-concepts#52 it could be boilerplate for everything other than sparql-update.
<gb> Pull Request 52 Adds Privacy Considerations for RDF. (gkellogg) privacy-tracker, spec:enhancement
ora: other editorial PRs have been here for a while, so I presume they can be merged.
ktk: The media type issues needs a minor change.
ora: I think we can close w3c/sparql-update#19
<gb> Pull Request 19 rationalize some whitespace & punctuation (TallTed) spec:editorial
ktk: I think there may be some things to resolve first, then merge.
ora: I presume w3c/rdf-n-triples#34 needs to wait on w3c/rdf-concepts#48.
AndyS: I've started on base direction for SPARQL.
rubensworks: I wanted to be sure that comments are cleared on w3c/sparql-update#19.
AndyS: I'll look at it.
Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
ora: Looking at open issues.
gkellogg: we should talk about the test suite.
AndyS: I couldn't find one for the process about how to handle tests.
… I think the working group has to decide how to deal with tests.
… At some point, we'll need to bless a set of tests to show implementation compliance.
… I'd like to hear from W3C about what's viable.
AndyS: I'd imagine it would be for the lifetime of the WG.
AndyS: Closing the CG would have barriers because of otherwise open contributes.
AndyS: The CG may still be useful for ongoing maintenance.
… I suggest we create an area in the repo for RDF 1.2.
TallTed: I'd like the repo there for the CG, and add areas for the new stuff, so that the old tests can still be run.
… Ideally, run 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2. That minimizes confusion.
ora: that seems like a good way forward.
<AndyS> The SPARQL area: https://
ora: For maintanence, I'd like this WG to be able to close eventually, so having the CG stay on for maintenance would be reasonable.
<TallTed> You're safe either say, ora. Chairs can be rotated. I stepped in as cochair for the last several months of one group where the prior chair was repurposed by their employer....
AndyS: If rubensworks has migrated, we can remove the sparql11 in the rdf-tests repo. It was supposed to go away.
Tpt: I wanted to ask about the test suite; we added some tests to the sparql/sparql11 directory. Do we want to include them in the sparql 1.2 test suite, for example aggregate queries.
AndyS: It's a bit tricky. I'd rather change 1.1, when it relates to an erratum.
… If the erratum is controversial, we should leave the original in place. Most errata are for the document, and not outcomes.
Tpt: There is one test that may need to change.
TallTed: You're safe anyway, Ora, chairs can be changed.
AndyS: SPARQL has a long history of changing chairs.
AndyS: Just to be clear: we're going to form areas in the test suite to clearly delineate new work from legacy.
<gb> Cannot create action. Validation failed. Maybe gkellogg and AndyS is not a valid user for w3c/rdf-star-wg?
ACTION: AndyS to create two new areas in rdf-tests for rdf1.2 and sparql1.2
<gb> Created action #76
<gb> Pull Request 52 Adds Privacy Considerations for RDF. (gkellogg) privacy-tracker, spec:enhancement
<gb> Issue 34 Adds BNF and text to extend LANGTAG to support base direction