16:56:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
16:56:19 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/01/16-rdf-star-irc
16:57:30 <AndyS> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:57:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/16-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS
16:57:59 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:58:23 <ktk> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3f89f9e9-2ddb-4587-8c60-2dfdc927320a/20250116T120000/
16:58:23 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:58:23 <agendabot> agenda+ RDF Concepts -> 1 https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/
16:58:23 <agendabot> agenda+ Liberal Baseline Vote -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22liberal-baseline%22
16:58:38 <AndyS> AndyS has changed the topic to: RDF-Star WG -- 2025-01-16 -- Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3f89f9e9-2ddb-4587-8c60-2dfdc927320a/20250116T120000/#agenda
16:58:39 <james> james has joined #rdf-star
16:59:23 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
16:59:46 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-star
16:59:51 <gkellogg> present+
16:59:53 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
16:59:55 <AndyS> Meeting: RDF-Star WG biweekly meeting
16:59:57 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
17:00:01 <AndyS> present+
17:00:09 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
17:00:19 <james> present+
17:00:21 <fsasaki> present+
17:00:39 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
17:00:39 <pchampin> scribe+
17:00:44 <TallTed> present+
17:00:44 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/01/10-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:00:44 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/01/17-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:00:47 <ktk> Chair: ktk
17:00:51 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star WG focused meeting
17:01:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/16-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:01:22 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
17:01:22 <pchampin> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3f89f9e9-2ddb-4587-8c60-2dfdc927320a/20250116T120000/#agenda
17:01:26 <agendabot> clear agenda
17:01:26 <agendabot> agenda+ RDF Concepts -> 1 https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/
17:01:26 <agendabot> agenda+ Liberal Baseline Vote -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22liberal-baseline%22
17:01:28 <pfps> present+
17:01:39 <doerthe> present+
17:01:43 <niklasl> present+
17:01:45 <ora> present+
17:01:46 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
17:01:49 <pchampin> present+
17:01:49 <AZ> present+
17:01:51 <enrico> present+
17:02:01 <eBremer> present+
17:02:02 <thomas> present+
17:02:07 <pchampin> zakim, open item 1
17:02:07 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- RDF Concepts -> 1 https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/ -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:02:15 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
17:02:21 <olaf> present+
17:02:27 <AndyS> q+
17:02:32 <ktk> ack AndyS
17:02:46 <Dominik_T> present+
17:02:46 <pchampin> ktk: I have seen much feedback on the mailing list
17:03:02 <pfps> q+
17:03:22 <pchampin> AndyS: we can not address each item individually. We need to identity highlights, so that we can progress on github.
17:03:27 <pfps> sorry, talking to a device with no mic
17:03:41 <pfps> go on without me for now
17:03:51 <ktk> ack pfps
17:04:14 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
17:04:24 <pfps> q+
17:04:37 <pchampin> ktk: last time we agreed to review RDF-Concept and identify what we thought were the blockers to go to Candidate Recommendation
17:04:44 <ora> ack pfps
17:04:54 <pchampin> pfps: to determine the blockers, what's our requirements for CR?
17:05:02 <pchampin> We can go to CR with caveats, right?
17:05:06 <Souri> present+
17:05:13 <pchampin> s/We can/... We can
17:05:17 <pchampin> q+
17:05:30 <ora> ack pchampin
17:05:43 <AndyS> scribe+
17:05:45 <pchampin> ... My only blocker is the rdf:JSON. I'd like a note that say that it may be remove.
17:06:05 <AndyS> pchampin: Yes, that can be done - that is "feature at risk"
17:06:24 <pfps> I would be happier if rdf:JSON was fixed before CR, though
17:07:12 <AndyS> scribe-
17:07:18 <AZ> q+
17:07:18 <thomas> q+
17:07:19 <gkellogg> q+
17:07:26 <pchampin> ktk: let's not discuss the blockers here, just try to list them. What else do we have?
17:07:59 <pchampin> AZ: with respect to the Conformance section, there was a discussion on w3c/rdf-concept#135
17:08:00 <gb> Issue 135 not found
17:08:05 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/135
17:08:05 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/135 -> Issue 135 naming RDF 1.2 without triple terms (by pfps) [needs discussion]
17:08:12 <AZ> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/135
17:08:23 <pchampin> s/rdf-concept#/rdf-concepts#
17:08:49 <pchampin> AZ: the decision we voted on is https://www.w3.org/2023/10/05-rdf-star-minutes#r03
17:09:12 <pchampin> ... the profiles were supposed to be named "Basic" and "Full".
17:09:50 <pchampin> ... I don't see any mention of RDF 1.2 Basic in the document. Was this decision overriden?
17:09:52 <ktk> q?
17:09:55 <ktk> ack AZ
17:10:01 <gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#dfn-classic-conformance
17:10:47 <pchampin> gkellogg: we have "Classic" conformance defined. It is just a matter of renaming "Classic" to "Basic".
17:11:53 <pchampin> AZ: the discussion was also about naming them "levels of conformance" or "profiles". So this is another difference: the goal was to define an explicit subset of the specification.
17:12:22 <ktk> q?
17:12:23 <pchampin> gkellogg: the term "profile" has connotations, esp. in HTTP. We should not conflate those two things.
17:12:43 <niklasl> +1 to avoid conflating "profiles" (as WIP concept IMHO); and "conformance levels"
17:13:07 <pchampin> AZ: I agree that we should not confuse the two things. In the discussion before the vote, I was careful to explain that defining "levels of conformance" and defining "profiles" was different.
17:13:27 <pchampin> ... and the decision was to define profiles. We can make a new decision, but that's what the current decision is.
17:14:04 <pchampin> ktk: did you notice the editor's note in this section?
17:14:15 <pchampin> AZ: I think that note is even older than the decision.
17:14:23 <pchampin> ktk: is this a blocker for you?
17:14:30 <ktk> q`?
17:14:32 <ktk> q?
17:14:34 <ktk> ack thomas
17:14:58 <pchampin> AZ: not necessarily, but I would like clarification.
17:15:28 <pchampin> thomas: the current spec does not contain the unstar mapping, the PR is currently blocked.
17:15:45 <ktk> q?
17:15:53 <pchampin> ... I would like a better explanation of the difference between triple and triple term.
17:15:53 <pchampin> q+
17:15:58 <enrico> q+
17:16:10 <pchampin> ... those are blockers for me.
17:16:12 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:16:34 <pchampin> gkellogg: CR is an important publication milestone, the occasion to get feedback from outside.
17:16:51 <pchampin> ... notes and issues marker can give external readers some context about the state of discussions in the group,
17:17:01 <pchampin> ... but we should not hold the document.
17:17:35 <pchampin> ... Reorganizing the document also should not get in the way of moving to CR.
17:17:38 <thomas> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/115 unstar mapping to be included into RDF Concepts
17:17:39 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/115 -> Pull Request 115 add section about 'unstar' mapping (by pchampin) [spec:enhancement]
17:17:51 <AndyS> None of my review comments are blockers.
17:18:28 <pchampin> thomas: I forgot about triple terms in the subject position, but that's also a blocker for me.
17:19:09 <ktk> q?
17:19:17 <pchampin> ... I didn't understand that the stake was this. I think we need more discussion.
17:19:17 <AndyS> scribe+
17:19:51 <AndyS> pchampin: PR on unstar is blocked by a request to discuss it first
17:20:19 <AndyS> ... concepts "works" without RDF-star
17:20:47 <AndyS> pchampin: Graph Isomorphism needs updating for triple terms.
17:21:28 <AndyS> ... also whether rdf:dirLangString is necessary or roll into rdf:langString
17:22:00 <ktk> q?
17:22:03 <AndyS> ktk: Could we just note the work needs doing for Graph Isomorphism
17:22:04 <ktk> ack pchampin
17:22:34 <AndyS> pchampin: I would be happy with an issue marker.
17:23:01 <AndyS> scribe-
17:23:14 <pchampin> enrico: +1 to graph isomorphism. A number of things need to be fixed in RDF-Semantics, I didn't have the time to review it completely.
17:23:38 <pchampin> ... More generally, I think that RDF-Concepts and RDF-Semantics should be written in a non-ambiguous and clean way.
17:24:07 <pchampin> ... People are already asking questions about the WG on LinkedIn, showing that things should be clearer.
17:24:11 <fsasaki> q+
17:24:18 <ora> ack enrico
17:24:50 <pchampin> ... Section 1.5 in particular needs improvement.
17:24:57 <niklasl> I have to agree with @enrico , it does not appear ready for CR. But also yes, we can work on it now (ideally within a week)!
17:25:14 <pfps> as far as I can see the isomorphism is acceptable for triple terms, at least at the level of formality of Concepts, and it isn't used in Semantics (at the moment)
17:25:28 <ora> +1 to enrico's call for clarity
17:26:06 <pchampin> ... About the unstar mapping, we should look at it more closely before include it in CR.
17:26:15 <pfps> oops, please ignore my previous comment, there are some issues
17:26:34 <AndyS> q?
17:26:46 <AndyS> ack fsasaki
17:26:56 <pchampin> fsasaki: from the process perspective: CR means the specification is implementation-ready.
17:27:43 <pchampin> ... I heard about features such as directional language string, and rdf:JSON.
17:28:15 <pchampin> ... I also heard about explanatory text. The latter has less impact on implementations. It can be changed afterwards.
17:28:35 <thomas> triple terms in subject position seem like a feature to me
17:28:47 <AndyS> q+
17:28:59 <pchampin> ... Everythinh we do is already public. Going to CR is a signal that things is implementation ready -- and features at-risk need more feedback.
17:29:00 <thomas> q+
17:30:07 <pchampin> ... I encourage us to consider the question "go to CR" from this point of view: not "what do you want to change", but "is this implementation ready"?
17:30:10 <gkellogg> s/Everythinh/Everything/
17:30:17 <ktk> q?
17:30:26 <pchampin> AndyS: I agree with fsasaki.
17:30:52 <pchampin> ... Another important thing is the deadline for CR. People will usually post comments near the deadline.
17:31:09 <ora> ack AndyS
17:31:22 <pchampin> ... We will also get very general comments -- we have much more observers than participants in the WG.
17:31:41 <pchampin> thomas: I suggest we give it two more weeks, and then move to CR.
17:31:42 <pchampin> q+
17:31:52 <ktk> ack thomas
17:33:13 <ktk> q?
17:33:16 <ktk> ack pchampin
17:34:41 <thomas> it seems to me like we should decide about subject position and add unstar before gong to CR
17:35:12 <fsasaki> q+
17:35:47 <thomas> s/ gong / going
17:36:33 <thomas> .... because those are relevant to implementation
17:36:33 <fsasaki> q-
17:37:11 <pchampin> pchampin: note about the process: we don't go to CR directly, we first need horizontal review, which may take 4-6 weeks.
17:37:22 <pchampin> ... I think we can make editorial changes during this period.
17:37:39 <pchampin> ktk: I try to summarize the issues I heard:
17:37:51 <pchampin> ... - graph isomorphism (fix or put issue marker)
17:38:37 <pchampin> ... - section 1.5 and explanation about  triple terms
17:38:45 <pchampin> ... - triple terms in the subject position
17:38:54 <pchampin> ... - do we need the unstar mapping before CR
17:38:56 <niklasl> I assume "explaining triple terms" include "defining propositions"?
17:39:00 <pchampin> ... - rdf:JSON at reask
17:39:16 <pchampin> ... - "levels of comformance" vs. "profile"
17:39:30 <ora> s/reask/risk
17:39:37 <pfps> I created an issue for isomorphism, which has what I think is the required change.
17:39:38 <pchampin> gkellogg: also the disctinction between "abstract syntax" and "data model"
17:39:41 <thomas> q+
17:39:59 <pchampin> AndyS: for me this is mostly editorial, we can not change the title of the document
17:40:07 <james> q+
17:40:16 <thomas> q-
17:41:03 <pchampin> ktk: how do we do that now?
17:41:23 <pchampin> james: I expect to see notes about term identity for triple terms.
17:41:25 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#dfn-literal-term-equality
17:41:54 <fsasaki> q+
17:42:02 <ktk> ack james
17:42:10 <ktk> ack fsasaki
17:42:19 <pchampin> ... also, the change of "MUST" to "SHOULD" about supporting ill-type literals should have a note saying that it has not been arbitrary considered.
17:42:32 <thomas> q+
17:42:43 <james> arbitrary -> adequately
17:42:49 <ktk> ack thomas
17:43:00 <pchampin> fsasaki: we should consider the sublist comprising only the normative items of the list above
17:43:13 <fsasaki> q+
17:43:23 <ktk> ack fsasaki
17:43:24 <pchampin> thomas: I know that we can discuss for years about triple terms in the subject position, I don't know how to decide.
17:43:29 <gkellogg> q+
17:43:38 <pchampin> ... But we should discuss it once more.
17:44:18 <pchampin> fsasaki: I suggest we seek agreement on the normative sublist.
17:44:48 <ktk> ack gkellogg
17:44:53 <thomas> triple terms in subject position seems like a topic relevant for implementations
17:45:02 <pchampin> gkellogg: I think we should have issues created/updated for everything we need to do.
17:45:03 <pchampin> q+
17:45:16 <pchampin> ... we have some archaic issue markers in the document that need to be cleaned up.
17:45:51 <pchampin> ... and we should also insert issue markers for other pending issues.
17:46:17 <pchampin> ... About rdf:JSON, note that the datatype itself was already defined in JSON-LD. What would be at-risk would be its update by this spec.
17:46:25 <AndyS> scribe+
17:46:38 <thomas> s/ arbitrary considered./adequately considered.
17:47:01 <AndyS> pchampin: there are labels for W3C process - labels should be there for each repo
17:47:05 <ktk> ack pchampin
17:47:41 <fsasaki> q+
17:47:48 <AndyS> scribe-
17:48:10 <AndyS> ack fsasaki
17:48:33 <pchampin> fsasaki: it may be more feasible to do this offline. Picking a victim (not me) to create those issues offline and then iterate.
17:50:34 <pchampin> ktk: pchampin, can you create the issue about graph isomorphism?
17:50:42 <pchampin> gkellogg: actually, there is already an issue
17:51:14 <pchampin> ktk: enrico, niklasl, can you take care of creating/updating an issue about section 1.5
17:51:21 <pchampin> enrico: ok
17:51:50 <niklasl> There is https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/80 (re. subject position; already closed)
17:51:51 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/80 -> CLOSED Issue 80 where are triple terms allowed (by pfps) [spec:substantive]
17:52:06 <pchampin> ktk: thomas will create/update an issue about triple terms in the subject position.
17:52:17 <pchampin> ktk: what about the unstar mapping?
17:52:46 <pchampin> thomas: we hare a PR for that, IMO good for merging
17:53:13 <pchampin> w3c/rdf-concepts#115
17:53:13 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/115 -> Pull Request 115 add section about 'unstar' mapping (by pchampin) [spec:enhancement]
17:53:31 <pchampin> ktk: rdf:JSON, we do already have an issue for that.
17:53:32 <gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/116
17:53:33 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/116 -> Issue 116 rdf:JSON value space incorrect (by pfps) [ms:CR] [spec:bug]
17:54:39 <pchampin> ktk: levels vs. profile, this is normative, we need to address this. This needs an issue.
17:55:07 <pchampin> ktk: data model vs abstract syntax, do we have an issue for that?
17:55:12 <AZ> About conformance and profiles, here is the issue we can follow: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/135
17:55:12 <pchampin> gkellogg: no, I can create one.
17:55:12 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/135 -> Issue 135 naming RDF 1.2 without triple terms (by pfps) [needs discussion]
17:56:11 <pchampin> ktk: term-equality of triple term, james can you create an issue?
17:56:39 <niklasl> q+
17:56:40 <fsasaki> q+
17:56:45 <fsasaki> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3Ams%3ACR
17:57:06 <pchampin> ktk: MUST/SHOULD support ill-formed literals. james will create an issue
17:57:16 <pchampin> s/can you create an issue?/james will create an issue
17:57:20 <ora> ack fsasaki
17:57:39 <pchampin> fsasaki: link above shows the issues marked as "due for CR"
17:57:44 <fsasaki> q?
17:57:44 <ktk> ack niklasl
17:57:52 <pchampin> ktk: please everyone, put this label on the issue you create/update
17:58:16 <pchampin> niklasl: there was discussions about the graphic representation
17:58:34 <pchampin> ... is this bikeshedding or important for CR?
17:58:55 <pchampin> gkellogg: all the images are accessible (alt description), that's important.
17:59:08 <pchampin> ... Updating the image should always match the description.
17:59:35 <pchampin> ktk: thanks you all, adjourned
17:59:41 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:59:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/16-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
18:14:34 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
18:14:35 <niklasl> niklasl has left #rdf-star
19:38:48 <pfps> pfps has left #rdf-star
23:54:36 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
<pchampin> present+ gtw