Meeting minutes
<gb> MERGED Pull Request 57 Charter extension 2024-03 (by pchampin)
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2
ora: Any concerns about the last minutes?
<ora> PROPOSAL: Accept 2024-05-23 minutes
<ora> +1
<ktk> +1
<TallTed> +1
<eBrermer> +1
<niklasl> +1
<pfps> +1
+1
<gtw> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<tl> +1
<pchampin> +1
<doerthe> +1
<Souri> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept 2024-05-23 minutes
<ora> PROPOSAL: Accept 2024-06-06 minutes
<ora> 0
<ktk> +1
<gtw> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<niklasl> +1
+1
<tl> +1
<pchampin> +1
<eBrermer> +1
<TallTed> +1
<doerthe> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept 2024-06-06 minutes
Re-chartering 3
<gb> MERGED Pull Request 57 Charter extension 2024-03 (by pchampin)
pchampin: A new PR was pushed about possible change of name. Changing name mid-charter is unusual, so I rephrased to to say that we may change the name in the next charter.
… Other than that, it should be ready to go.
ora: What do we need to do next?
pchampin: We need to go to the strategy team and to say what we want to submit. Already talked to them, so there should be no pushback. This will be a regular AC vote.
ktk: Is a formal resolution needed in this group?
pchampin: Let's make a resolution to be on the safe side.
<ora> PROPOSAL: Authorize pchampin to take the new charter proposal to the W3C strategy team
<ora> +1
+1
<gkellogg> +1
<eBrermer> +1
<pchampin> +1
<Souri> +1
<gtw> +1
<TallTed> +1
<ktk> +1
<niklasl> +1
<tl> +1
RESOLUTION: Authorize pchampin to take the new charter proposal to the W3C strategy team
<Tpt> +1
<pfps> +1
<Zakim> tl, you wanted to ask for Ora's trip report from Basel, especially the discussion with Hannah Bast (developer of the Qlever triple store) that Adrian mentioned last week
tl: I'm interested in the difficulties on RDF-star in Qlever.
ora: I didn't get the feeling they thought about it much.
… They don't support SPARQL 1.1 fully yet either.
tl: Maybe it's not important here.
ora: I explained to her what we are doing in the group atm.
… They are working through a bunch of stuff still in their SPARQL impl.
… I will email her.
… I was impressed with the performance of that system.
… They are orders of magnitude faster.
… There are no special tricks in the implementation. Just good understanding of the algorithms and clean code.
Proposal for next week's discussion
ora: enrico is working on a new proposal which simplifies things.
… I'm sure he will send it before next week's meeting.
… Next week's topic should probably be about that.
pchampin: Is this a new proposal next to the baseline?
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: The results of the poll can be found at this link.
… This was to ask about the support for the baseline proposal.
ora: We should give him the opportunity to explain his proposal.
pfps: I thought we were at the point of voting, not to look at new things.
ora: I don't disagree.
pfps: We did vote.
TallTed: This is not a baseline, should be something we should grow from.
ora: What do you propose?
TallTed: Given that this is a strawpoll, this is not a binding decision, that decisions be clearly communicated.
… The strawpoll does not accomplish the goal.
ktk: I disagree.
… We should set on something that is the foundation. Further proposals should be framed on that proposal.
ora: Could we resolve something next week?
ktk: I don't know.
tl: I don't understand the need for a strawpoll at all.
<TallTed> more metamodelling crap and
<TallTed> more axiomatic triples crap
TallTed: The above is not part of a baseline.
<TallTed> all the RDF 1.1 metamodelling crap and
<TallTed> all the RDF 1.1 axiomatic triples crap
TallTed: Major changes must be made to this draft.
… I don't see how it could be made in a shape that we can vote on next week.
… Previous proposals were too open-ended, leading to incompat, just like this proposal.
… Feels like we're starting over.
niklasl: There is frustration that we're not progressing. I want to talk about the reqs and use cases.
<niklasl> https://
<pfps> My bad - I should realize the difference between the two mailing lists.
niklasl: I abstained from voting, because I agree that we need something clearer to vote on.
… Opacity came back, and no one really wanted that.
… I tried to show the way I see where we're at in my reply to the mail.
… I agree we need to talk about something concrete.
ora: The word "baseline" is probably not the right one.
gtw: I agree with that. We're getting too hung up on the word "baseline".
… The instructions were clear on the strawpoll.
… Previous proposals were hard to compare because there was nothing clear to compare to.
<gkellogg> +1 to gtw
gtw: We need something to compare to as we move forward.
ora: This ability to compare is very important.
… This is still difficult for me.
… And how to compare this to the broader group of stakeholders.
<Souri> "benchmark" (instead of "baseline") for comparison whenever something new is proposed
ora: I propose next week we discuss the strawpoll results, to see if we agree on this "baseline".
tl: I want to understand what the minimal set is.
… E.g. RDF* (RDR) + occurrences.
ktk: What is the alternative if you disagree with the baseline?
pfps: My strawpoll vote had a proposal for another baseline. It's a subset of the page that we were voting on without the crap.
… We had use cases, but didn't spend time discussing them.
… If we evolve things in RDF 1.2, we should have approved use cases for them.
TallTed: We should have approved requirements that come out of the approved use cases.
… So we can compare and test which proposals meet the requirements.
<pchampin> +1
TallTed: I would like us to get to this.
niklasl: I agree. I want to help with the use cases.
<ora> PROPOSAL: Next week: validating the baseline against use cases
<ora> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<gtw> +1
<tl> +1
<ktk> +1
<eBrermer> +1
+1
<pchampin> +1
<niklasl> +1
<doerthe> +1
<Tpt> +1
<TallTed> +1
RESOLUTION: Next week: validating the baseline against use cases
ktk: I will add the link to the agenda for next week.
TallTed: It may be time to move that stuff from the wiki to managed pages.
… Treating it like a spec document, with PRs.
<ora> +1 to TallTed's idea
<pchampin> +1
<niklasl> +1
<ktk> +1
<eBrermer> +1
<Souri> +1
<gkellogg> +1 should be a WG Note in ReSpec format.
<doerthe> +1
gkellogg: You can make respec documents about markdown documents.
<TallTed> +1 WG Note in ReSpec
Review of open actions, available at 4
pchampin: If we have a new note, we should re-activate the workflows.
Review of pull requests, available at 5
gkellogg: There are some trivial PRs on Turtle and TriG.
… The big one is rdf:JSON.
… A note was added about infinite numbers.
gkellogg: It's a 10-11 month PR atm, so we need to move on.
pfps: It looks like rdf:JSON may actually be an RDF datatype now. At the expense of being different from other JSON.
gkellogg: Similar to xml and html literals, those groups saw the need to represent it in RDF. So did the JSON-LD group for JSON.
… We removed canonicalization from it.
pfps: The JSON-LD people should look at it.
gkellogg: The expectation from the JSON-LD group would be that the RDF WG would include it.
<TallTed> conveniently, gkellogg is a JSON-LD people. As am I.
<TallTed> might be worth a "call for objections from JSON-LD CG/WG"
pfps: Having this as a PR is no different than a draft. They are constantly changing.
… The JSON-LD WG should approve it before it gets in.
… We have a fair cross-representation between these 2 groups.
ktk: Can we live with merging, and asking for feedback from the JSON-LD WG?
niklasl: I think it would be good to merge now.
<pchampin> @pfps, by merging it, we generate a snapshot of the WD, so it is still more stable than a PR
ora: I like the idea to merge now, and solicit feedback. And if needed, create another PR.
ora: Anyone disagree?
<TallTed> we can ask JSON-LD people to make substantive change requests -- i.e., PRs and/or issues -- making clear their objection
pchampin: Peter needs to change his review before it can be merged.
<ktk> pfps -- the PR is blocked by you, you would have to unblock
<ktk> pfps -- we didn't hear you anymore on zoom