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/
<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/
<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/
pfps: also w3c/
<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/
Review of open actions, available at 4
ora: seems enough prioritization for now
<niklasl> There is w3c/
<gb> Issue 14 Quoted triples not mentioned in primer (by kvistgaard) [spec:editorial]
pchampin: w3c/
<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://
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/
<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/
<gb> CLOSED Pull Request 53 First version of semantics for triple terms (by franconi) [needs discussion] [spec:enhancement] [spec:substantive]
enrico: w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 55 New triple term semantics in the rdf-semantics spec (by franconi) [spec:enhancement] [spec:substantive]
<AndyS> https://
enrico: major semantics simplification, being discussed tomorrow, should be able to bring to main group in first Thursday call after holidays
<AndyS> https://
<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://
<niklasl> https://
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://
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