16:54:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
16:54:42 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-rdf-star-irc
16:54:47 <ktk> meeting:  RDF-Star WG biweekly meeting
16:54:55 <ktk> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f1d5533f-ff2b-4d70-941c-db47b0b5918d/20250109T120000/
16:54:56 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:54:56 <agendabot> agenda+ Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2024/12/12-rdf-star-minutes.html , -> 2 https://www.w3.org/2024/12/19-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:54:56 <agendabot> agenda+ Time Management -> 3 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2025Jan/0008.html
16:54:58 <agendabot> agenda+ Prioritization of next week's topics -> 4 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/6
16:54:58 <agendabot> agenda+ Review of open actions, available at -> 5 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3
16:55:01 <agendabot> agenda+ Review of pull requests, available at -> 6 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4
16:55:04 <agendabot> agenda+ Issue Triage, available at -> 7 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/5
16:55:07 <agendabot> agenda+ Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
16:55:11 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:55:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
16:55:16 <ktk> RRSAgent, make log public
16:55:27 <ktk> present+
16:55:44 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:56:17 <james> james has joined #rdf-star
16:57:13 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
16:57:37 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
16:58:48 <ktk> eBremer: you would be scribe, is this working for you?
16:58:53 <eBremer> yah
16:58:57 <ktk> tnx
16:59:02 <ktk> Scribe: eBremer:
16:59:17 <ktk> s/eBremer:/eBremer/
16:59:24 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:59:30 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
16:59:40 <AndyS> present+
16:59:44 <eBremer> present+
16:59:53 <niklasl> present+
17:00:03 <ora> present+
17:00:06 <gtw> present+
17:00:06 <ora> chair+
17:00:11 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
17:00:22 <rubensworks> present+
17:00:31 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/12/20-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:00:31 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/01/10-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:00:31 <TallTed> present+
17:00:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:00:42 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:00:45 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
17:01:09 <gkellogg> present+
17:01:51 <fsasaki> present+
17:02:16 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
17:02:23 <pfps> present+
17:02:28 <doerthe> present+
17:02:29 <pfps> minutes look ok to me
17:02:32 <james> present+
17:02:35 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-star
17:02:39 <AZ> present+
17:02:53 <TallTed> Zakim, open item 1
17:02:53 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2024/12/12-rdf-star-minutes.html , -> 2 https://www.w3.org/2024/12/19-rdf-star-minutes.html --
17:02:56 <Zakim> ... taken up [from agendabot]
17:03:05 <olaf> present+
17:03:13 <tl> present+
17:03:22 <ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes from 2024-12-12 and 2024-12-19
17:03:31 <niklasl> +1
17:03:34 <ora> +1
17:03:35 <AndyS> +1
17:03:37 <ktk> +1
17:03:40 <olaf> +1
17:03:44 <gkellogg> +1
17:03:48 <rubensworks> +0
17:03:50 <fsasaki> +1
17:03:59 <AZ> +0 (I was not present)
17:03:59 <tl> +1
17:04:00 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
17:04:07 <eBremer> present+
17:04:07 <doerthe> +1
17:04:20 <pfps> +1
17:04:22 <eBremer> +1
17:04:26 <gtw> +1
17:04:26 <james> +1
17:04:26 <pchampin> +1
17:04:26 <TallTed> +1
17:04:30 <ora> RESOLVED: Approve minutes from 2024-12-12 and 2024-12-19
17:04:36 <ktk> Zakim, next item
17:04:36 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Time Management -> 3 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2025Jan/0008.html -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:04:46 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
17:04:53 <enrico> present+
17:05:28 <eBremer> gkellogg: we have been at this for sometime...in a piecemeal fashin
17:05:44 <eBremer> ... we need to change the way we work..using project management
17:05:53 <eBremer> ... establish dates and stick to them
17:06:05 <AZ> s/+0 (I was not present)/+0.5 (I was not present 2024-12-12)
17:06:10 <eBremer> ... we have tests in that are provisional...
17:06:21 <eBremer> ... still going back and forth on the syntax...
17:06:43 <ktk> q?
17:06:52 <eBremer> ora: do you feel some stuff is going to fall by the wayside...
17:07:14 <eBremer> gkellogg: we have to make some hard decisions...
17:07:30 <eBremer> ... the conversations now are getting us closer and thats great..
17:08:29 <eBremer> ... concentrate on the abstract syntax and not get distracted from that
17:08:49 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
17:09:00 <eBremer> ora: how should we organize this and can we divide and conquer?
17:09:01 <doerthe> present+
17:09:12 <pfps> q+
17:09:16 <eBremer> ... divide ourselves into smaller task forces...any thoughts?
17:09:18 <ora> ack pfps
17:09:45 <eBremer> pfps: many of us are interested in many areas...difficult to pull apart this ball of string..
17:09:47 <AndyS> q+
17:09:52 <eBremer> ora: this is true
17:09:53 <ora> ack AndyS
17:10:26 <eBremer> AndyS: when we pick items to discuss...each item has a sheperd..
17:10:57 <eBremer> ora: shepards do preparatory work to speed things around
17:11:22 <pfps> q+
17:11:22 <eBremer> AndyS: I'm finding difficult to spend time on the multiple tracks at any given time..
17:11:26 <ora> ack pfps
17:11:49 <eBremer> pfps: one of the things causing alot of work is how we are editing our documents....
17:12:04 <eBremer> ... if you care about it, it ends up consuming alot of time
17:12:55 <eBremer> pfps: ...several larges wastes of time coming from non-editors
17:13:18 <eBremer> ora: suggests to me that we may need to reassess the roles of editors...
17:13:37 <gkellogg> q+
17:13:38 <eBremer> ... of course one of the problems is that we have alot of documents...
17:14:24 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:14:27 <eBremer> ora: we have many things people have string opinions about
17:15:42 <eBremer> gkellogg: focus on semantics and concepts...
17:15:55 <eBremer> ora: can we commit ourselves to those?
17:15:59 <tl> s/string/strong
17:16:12 <AndyS> q+ to ask about whole-document review
17:16:18 <ora> ack AndyS
17:16:18 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about whole-document review
17:16:35 <pfps> I would put that somewhat differently - there were some central things that the WG needs to do but there were quite a number of other things that were done, took a lot of WG resources, and are still consuming resources.  This is independent of which document is involved.
17:16:49 <eBremer> AndyS: when are we expecting to do whole document review?
17:17:37 <pfps> +1 to Andy's comment that PR reviews are expanding the scope of the PRs
17:18:18 <eBremer> ora: I like the idea of whole document reviews...
17:18:55 <tl> q+
17:19:20 <eBremer> ora: pick two people to drive this...prod other people or the whole group to get reviews in
17:19:21 <ora> ack tl
17:19:38 <eBremer> tl: I like the idea to focus on concepts and semantics...
17:20:04 <eBremer> ... syntax is an issue that is hard and has to be done sometime...
17:20:15 <eBremer> ... semantics is a big issue..
17:20:22 <pfps> q+ to disagree
17:20:33 <doerthe> q+
17:20:35 <ora> ack pfps
17:20:35 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to disagree
17:20:50 <eBremer> pfps: I disagree about semantics...
17:21:13 <eBremer> ... all we need to do is get a syntax...
17:21:28 <ora> ack doerthe
17:21:42 <enrico> +1 to pfps: have a vote soon on abstract syntax and simple semantics
17:21:57 <eBremer> doerthe: I agree with pete, but we need to bring the semantics forward...
17:22:06 <pfps> Lot of semantics doesn't matter much - the important part is simple semantics because that impacts (or should impact) SPARQL
17:22:10 <pchampin> q+
17:22:13 <eBremer> s/pete/peter
17:22:16 <enrico> q+
17:22:38 <ora> ack pchampin
17:23:00 <eBremer> pchampin: I think a middle ground....I generally agree with peter...
17:23:14 <eBremer> ... the semantics dont need to be discuss with the general group...we have the task force..
17:23:20 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
17:23:26 <enrico> present+
17:23:28 <enrico> q?
17:23:47 <eBremer> ... the rest of the group can focus on the abstract syntax which is what we should be focusing on in the moment
17:24:11 <eBremer> ... triple terms in the subject position...
17:24:16 <pfps> My point is that the concrete and abstract syntax stuff doesn't depend on much of Semantics so get the abstract syntax and the concrete syntaxes done without worrying about the details of the semantics.
17:24:43 <ora> ack enrico
17:25:02 <eBremer> enrico: I believe we should make a final decision on the abstract syntax...
17:25:20 <eBremer> ... should we allow triple terms only in the object position?
17:25:48 <gkellogg> q+
17:25:56 <pfps> When did generalized syntax (literals in subject posiion) show up?
17:26:24 <enrico> it appears in the rdf-semantics document, already now wrt literals
17:26:31 <enrico> (somehow)
17:26:41 <gkellogg> q-
17:26:53 <eBremer> ora: should we make this a topic of discussion next week?
17:27:43 <pfps> As far as I can tell generalized RDF only shows up in non-normative sections of both Concepts and Semantics.
17:28:05 <enrico> q+
17:28:13 <eBremer> ora: I agree with Peter that the abstract syntax dont depend on what we do in the semantics
17:28:15 <ora> ack enrico
17:28:32 <eBremer> enrico: we need to make a decision soon on the simple semantics
17:28:33 <eBremer> ...
17:30:10 <pchampin> q+
17:30:32 <pfps> q+ to ask whether there isn't already a decided-on abstract syntax
17:30:34 <ora> ack pchampin
17:30:47 <AndyS> q+
17:31:26 <ora> ack pfps
17:31:26 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask whether there isn't already a decided-on abstract syntax
17:31:37 <AndyS> q-
17:32:14 <AndyS> q+
17:32:18 <ora> ack AndyS
17:33:12 <pfps> Section 3 of RDF 1.2 Concepts and Abstract Syntax has the abstract syntax.  As far as I can tell it corresponds to WG decisions and covers everything needed.
17:33:26 <pchampin> q+
17:33:37 <niklasl> +1 to AndyS
17:33:40 <ora> ack pchampin
17:34:46 <fsasaki> q+
17:35:08 <pfps> Section 7 of Concepts needs to be updated.
17:35:13 <eBremer> pchampin: all of the interpretations are based on RDF Concepts
17:35:14 <ora> ack fsasaki
17:38:26 <gkellogg> q+
17:38:28 <eBremer> fsasaki: do we want to work with a list of what needs to be done by what dates?
17:39:09 <pfps> I'm trying to figure out just what core work needs to be done.  As far as I can tell, the only core work that needs to be done is to approve a simple semantics that covers triple terms.  So let's have the semantics task force put forward a proposal for this (only) for discussion and voting on next week.
17:39:13 <pfps> q+
17:39:32 <pchampin> we are not starting from nothing; failing to achieve consensus on a PR can mean "we keep this part of the spec as is for now"
17:39:33 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:40:05 <eBremer> gkellogg: we pick a date...what are the things that have to be done to achieve a milestone?
17:40:45 <eBremer> ... the intention is to put things out there for the community to see...
17:40:53 <pfps> q+ to agree with Gregg, with exception of Section 7
17:41:05 <ora> ack pfps
17:41:05 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to agree with Gregg, with exception of Section 7
17:41:23 <ktk> q+
17:41:40 <ora> ack ktk
17:41:42 <eBremer> pfps: I agree with Greg.  I look over concepts and it seems to be in good shape....we could do a document review except section 7...
17:42:36 <pfps> q+ to sugges that the Semantics TF produce a document for simple semantics for discussion and voting on next week
17:42:43 <pfps> s/sugges/suggest/
17:42:45 <ora> ack pfps
17:42:45 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to sugges that the Semantics TF produce a document for simple semantics for discussion and voting on next week
17:43:13 <eBremer> pfps: concepts in fine shape...
17:44:16 <AndyS> q+
17:44:26 <ora> ack AndyS
17:44:31 <eBremer> ora: ...for concepts and semantics we could be to CR fairly soon
17:45:06 <eBremer> AndyS: we have scope creep on PRs...there are many things to juggle and it becomes inefficient
17:45:21 <pchampin> q+
17:45:28 <ora> ack pchampin
17:45:51 <gkellogg> q+
17:46:16 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:46:43 <eBremer> gkellog: what would move us forward if everyone could review rdf concepts....
17:47:09 <gkellogg> s/gkellog:/gkellogg:/g
17:48:04 <pchampin> I agree, I feel that we are converging on Simple-, RDF- and RDFS- semantics.
17:49:00 <eBremer> ora: ...focus on concepts document next week....and maybe vote on simple semantics
17:49:39 <eBremer> ... sounds like the concepts document could be ready very soon...
17:50:12 <eBremer> ... every look at it....see if there are any items of concern and bring to meeting next week
17:51:30 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/124
17:51:30 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/124 -> Pull Request 124 Remove 'recognized datatype IRI' in favor of RDF Semantics definition and use (by afs) [spec:substantive]
17:51:33 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/124
17:51:58 <pchampin> +1 to merge this PR
17:52:04 <pchampin> q+
17:52:38 <ora> ack pchampin
17:53:03 <eBremer> gkellogg: approve of this PR so it is included in the group review of rdf concepts
17:53:27 <eBremer> s/gkellogg: approve/pchampin: approve
17:53:57 <pchampin> q+
17:54:55 <pchampin> q-
17:55:00 <ora> ack pchampin
17:55:21 <pchampin> https://iswc2025.semanticweb.org/
17:55:44 <pfps> It turns out that the current version of Section 7 has triple terms in it, so it looks to me that Concepts is ready for review.
17:56:00 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:56:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:58:51 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
18:06:39 <AndyS> PFPS - for semantics "symmetric" is what matters. Propably need bnode in the predicate position because of [I+A](r.p)
18:17:14 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:34:56 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:50:25 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:05:31 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:23:48 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:34:52 <pfps> pfps has left #rdf-star
20:02:35 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:34:20 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:44:54 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:03:06 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:19:44 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:38:11 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star