W3C

RDF-Star WG biweekly meeting

12 December 2024

Attendees

Present
AndyS, doerthe, draggett, eBremer, enrico, fsasaki, gkellogg, gtw, james, ktk, niklasl, olaf, ora, pchampin, pfps, tl, Tpt
Regrets
Souri
Chair
ora
Scribe
TallTed, pchampin

Meeting minutes

Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2

ora: calls for concerns with minutes of last 2 weeks...

james: added a table w3c/sparql-update#41 (comment)

<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes of last two meetings

<pfps> +1

<ora> +1

<Tpt> +1

<gtw> +1

<AndyS> +1

<ktk> +1

<eBremer> +1

<tl> +1

<fsasaki> +1

<doerthe> +1

<niklasl> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<TallTed> +1

<olaf> +1

<james> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of last two meetings

Calls during the festive break

<gb> Issue 41 Allow dataset formats to be valid in LOAD with no INTO (by afs) [Errata] [spec:enhancement]

<pfps> I'm ok for Jan 2

ora: planning meeting cancellations during holidays...

<tl> I will probably not be around next Thursday, but would be around Jan 2.

<olaf> I will be on vacation on Jan 2.

<ora> PROPOSAL: Cancel meetings of 2024-12-26 and 2025-01-02

<ora> +1

<Tpt> +1

<ktk> +1

<niklasl> +1

<TallTed> +1

<doerthe> +1

<eBremer> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<tl> +1

<pchampin> +1

<james> +1

<gtw> +1

<olaf> +1

RESOLUTION: Cancel meetings of 2024-12-26 and 2025-01-02

<pfps> 0

Prioritization of next week's topics 3

pfps: would like w3c/rdf-semantics#56 to be discussed as soon as possible

<gb> Issue 56 semantic conditions for ground graphs damaged (by pfps) [needs discussion] [spec:bug] [spec:substantive]

<pchampin> +1 to discuss the primer

<niklasl> +1 sounds good

AndyS: Primer is getting lots of work. Would like to spend 20 minutes talking about that.

<gkellogg> w3c/rdf-concepts#60

<gb> Issue 60 Drop the requirement to support ill-typed literals with recognized datatype IRIs (by wouterbeek) [needs discussion] [spec:enhancement]

pchampin: would like to discuss w3c/rdf-concepts#60

pfps: also w3c/rdf-semantics#49

<gb> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [needs discussion]

<niklasl> I added the needs-discussion on the Primer PR. Enough or do we need a tracking issue too?

<gkellogg> w3c/rdf-star-wg#132

<gb> Issue 132 Turtle Grammar: Collections and blank node property lists in triple terms (by doerthe) [needs discussion]

<pchampin> yes, the rdf-primer repo is tracked

gkellogg: w3c/rdf-star-wg#132 gets involved in a number of other things

Review of open actions, available at 4

ora: seems enough prioritization for now

<niklasl> There is w3c/rdf-primer#14 though; it does ask for adding "quoted triples", which the PR is about.

<gb> Issue 14 Quoted triples not mentioned in primer (by kvistgaard) [spec:editorial]

pchampin: w3c/rdf-star-wg#137 is in process

<gb> Action 137 work with pchampin to add labels for "defer-next-version" or similar. (on afs, pchampin) due 2024-11-28

gkellogg: also have "spec-enhancement". not clear difference with "substantive".

ora: where do human readable descriptions of these labels live?

<gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/labels

pchampin: I should be the one editing these, so that all repos stay consistent.
… will edit the action that works with these, and add references to class 1/2/3/4

ora: what about this "unstar" thing?

<niklasl> +1 to gkellogg

ora: w3c/rdf-star-wg#129 and w3c/rdf-concepts#115

<gb> Pull Request 115 add section about 'unstar' mapping (by pchampin)

<gb> Action 129 write a PR on rdf-concepts for the unstar mapping (on pchampin) due 2024-10-01

Review of pull requests, available at 5

[ discussion ... close action 129 as covered by pull 115 ]

AndyS: tiny fix (s/http/https/) to satisfy pubrules

[ conversation ... a few merges approved ]

AndyS: w3c/rdf-semantics#53 oddly links to issue that's closed because repo was deleted

<gb> CLOSED Pull Request 53 First version of semantics for triple terms (by franconi) [needs discussion] [spec:enhancement] [spec:substantive]

enrico: w3c/rdf-semantics#53 was closed in favor of w3c/rdf-semantics#55

<gb> Pull Request 55 New triple term semantics in the rdf-semantics spec (by franconi) [spec:enhancement] [spec:substantive]

<AndyS> https://www.w3.org/2024/11/14-rdf-star-minutes.html#8e86

enrico: major semantics simplification, being discussed tomorrow, should be able to bring to main group in first Thursday call after holidays

<AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22liberal-baseline%22

<TallTed> PR 52 needs to be rolled back, and its claimed changes re-done as smaller PRs

gkellogg: I fear that rolling it back and re-executing differently will lose some of its fixes
… think we need Dominic here to discuss what he did

pfps: this PR seems to have been merged over the objections of at least 2 WG members, and should be undone for that reason if no other
… I found VERY subtle changes in content that impacted the semantics, and cannot certify that this was the only such issue

pchampin: sympathizes with difficulty of review, and that semantics change is quite concerning.
… would probably be better to revert the PR. I would be happy to try to extract what was editorial, what was fixing presentation, and what might have inadvertently made substantive change, toward preserving Dominic's work

ora: that seems a reasonable approach

TallTed: my concern is twofold.
… firstly, this PR is impossible to review up close. As pfps said, subtle changes can have significant impact.
… This is not to discount Dominik's effort in fixing some HTML in there.
… But there were issues in the labels of his commits. They claimed to do something in all the HTML, while they did missed some spots.
… And reviewing that in such big diffs is impossible.
… secondly, this can happen again.
… requested changes have been marked as resolved without the change being actually implemented.
… I don't want that to happen again.
… This was a huge PR, people need to acknowledge that.

ora: acknowledged this is a large PR

AndyS: there are diff tools which can be used and should highlight the changed areas

pfps: the HTML diff shows lots of false positives (changes that don't appear to be changes), in my view, and that makes me worry about false negatives
… it also doesn't show the included graphics, among other things

ora: the way forward appears to be to revert this, and pchampin has volunteered to review for editorial changes that could be preserved (i.e., re-executed)

<pfps> The HTML diff tool isn't showing the current state of the document for Section 4.1, including a triple that is mangled.

ora: I share the concern that some change might be accidentally made

ktk: there was a message on the mailing list from an external person who hasn't been answered yet

<pchampin> https://www.w3.org/mid/PR3P194MB069824A1101812F3605F8B3BAE322@PR3P194MB0698.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM

<niklasl> https://gist.github.com/niklasl/69428b043be6f1d33fd45f89cbe52632#file-statement-entailment-ttl

niklasl: we could probably discuss that tomorrow. I can't answer the whole of his questions yet, but may be able to complete an answer after such discussion.

pfps: I think it would be fine to say "we haven't worked on rdf-schema yet. stay tuned for more substantive response."

<niklasl> +1 to issue and email reply a link to that

gkellogg: is there an issue covering this? should we be creating issues for other such email messages, to track our response and resolution?

<pfps> +1 as well

<niklasl> In rdf-star-wg repo?

ora: that sounds like good plan. niklasl will send reply

pchampin: I think it would be fine for niklasl to answer with "the group hasn't addressed rdf-schema yet. In my opinion, blah blah, but the group's conclusion may differ."

<tl> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tgejYIrUYQ&pp=ygUWbG90aWNvIGplcnZlbiBib2xsZW1hbg%3D%3D

tl: I think Uniprot had raised a question at some point, which we don't seem to have answered.

Issue Triage, available at 6

Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting

ADJOURNED

Summary of resolutions

  1. Approve minutes of last two meetings
  2. Cancel meetings of 2024-12-26 and 2025-01-02
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 242 (Fri Dec 20 18:32:17 2024 UTC).

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s|((somewhere))| https://github.com/w3c/sparql-update/issues/41#issuecomment-2539495141 |

Succeeded: s|the table is here : https://github.com/w3c/sparql-update/issues/41#issuecomment-2539495141||

Succeeded: s/next Thursday meeting/first Thursday call after holidays/

Maybe present: TallTed

All speakers: AndyS, enrico, gkellogg, james, ktk, niklasl, ora, pchampin, pfps, TallTed, tl

Active on IRC: AndyS, doerthe, draggett, eBremer, enrico, fsasaki, gkellogg, gtw, james, ktk, niklasl, olaf, ora, pchampin, pfps, TallTed, tl, Tpt