Meeting minutes
<ktk> eBremer: you would be scribe, is this working for you?
yah
<ktk> tnx
<pfps> minutes look ok to me
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes from 2024-12-12 and 2024-12-19
<niklasl> +1
<ora> +1
<AndyS> +1
<ktk> +1
<olaf> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<rubensworks> +0
<fsasaki> +1
<AZ> +0.5 (I was not present 2024-12-12)
<tl> +1
<doerthe> +1
<pfps> +1
<eBremer> +1
<gtw> +1
<james> +1
<pchampin> +1
<TallTed> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes from 2024-12-12 and 2024-12-19
Time Management 3
gkellogg: we have been at this for sometime...in a piecemeal fashin
… we need to change the way we work..using project management
… establish dates and stick to them
… we have tests in that are provisional...
… still going back and forth on the syntax...
ora: do you feel some stuff is going to fall by the wayside...
gkellogg: we have to make some hard decisions...
… the conversations now are getting us closer and thats great..
… concentrate on the abstract syntax and not get distracted from that
ora: how should we organize this and can we divide and conquer?
… divide ourselves into smaller task forces...any thoughts?
pfps: many of us are interested in many areas...difficult to pull apart this ball of string..
ora: this is true
AndyS: when we pick items to discuss...each item has a sheperd..
ora: shepards do preparatory work to speed things around
AndyS: I'm finding difficult to spend time on the multiple tracks at any given time..
pfps: one of the things causing alot of work is how we are editing our documents....
… if you care about it, it ends up consuming alot of time
pfps: ...several larges wastes of time coming from non-editors
ora: suggests to me that we may need to reassess the roles of editors...
… of course one of the problems is that we have alot of documents...
ora: we have many things people have strong opinions about
gkellogg: focus on semantics and concepts...
ora: can we commit ourselves to those?
<Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about whole-document review
<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.
AndyS: when are we expecting to do whole document review?
<pfps> +1 to Andy's comment that PR reviews are expanding the scope of the PRs
ora: I like the idea of whole document reviews...
ora: pick two people to drive this...prod other people or the whole group to get reviews in
tl: I like the idea to focus on concepts and semantics...
… syntax is an issue that is hard and has to be done sometime...
… semantics is a big issue..
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to disagree
pfps: I disagree about semantics...
… all we need to do is get a syntax...
<enrico> +1 to pfps: have a vote soon on abstract syntax and simple semantics
doerthe: I agree with peter, but we need to bring the semantics forward...
<pfps> Lot of semantics doesn't matter much - the important part is simple semantics because that impacts (or should impact) SPARQL
pchampin: I think a middle ground....I generally agree with peter...
… the semantics dont need to be discuss with the general group...we have the task force..
… the rest of the group can focus on the abstract syntax which is what we should be focusing on in the moment
… triple terms in the subject position...
<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.
enrico: I believe we should make a final decision on the abstract syntax...
… should we allow triple terms only in the object position?
<pfps> When did generalized syntax (literals in subject posiion) show up?
<enrico> it appears in the rdf-semantics document, already now wrt literals
<enrico> (somehow)
ora: should we make this a topic of discussion next week?
<pfps> As far as I can tell generalized RDF only shows up in non-normative sections of both Concepts and Semantics.
ora: I agree with Peter that the abstract syntax dont depend on what we do in the semantics
enrico: we need to make a decision soon on the simple semantics
…
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask whether there isn't already a decided-on abstract syntax
<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.
<niklasl> +1 to AndyS
<pfps> Section 7 of Concepts needs to be updated.
pchampin: all of the interpretations are based on RDF Concepts
fsasaki: do we want to work with a list of what needs to be done by what dates?
<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.
<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"
gkellogg: we pick a date...what are the things that have to be done to achieve a milestone?
… the intention is to put things out there for the community to see...
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to agree with Gregg, with exception of Section 7
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...
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to sugges that the Semantics TF produce a document for simple semantics for discussion and voting on next week
pfps: concepts in fine shape...
ora: ...for concepts and semantics we could be to CR fairly soon
AndyS: we have scope creep on PRs...there are many things to juggle and it becomes inefficient
gkellogg: what would move us forward if everyone could review rdf concepts....
<pchampin> I agree, I feel that we are converging on Simple-, RDF- and RDFS- semantics.
ora: ...focus on concepts document next week....and maybe vote on simple semantics
… sounds like the concepts document could be ready very soon...
… every look at it....see if there are any items of concern and bring to meeting next week
<pchampin> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 124 Remove 'recognized datatype IRI' in favor of RDF Semantics definition and use (by afs) [spec:substantive]
<AndyS> w3c/
<pchampin> +1 to merge this PR
pchampin: approve of this PR so it is included in the group review of rdf concepts
<pchampin> https://
<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.
<AndyS> PFPS - for semantics "symmetric" is what matters. Propably need bnode in the predicate position because of [I+A](r.p)