Meeting minutes
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2
<pfps> look fine to me :-)
ora: minutes approval OK?
<fsasaki> +1
<olaf> +1
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last two meetings' minutes
<ora> +1
<gkellogg> +0
<Dominik_T> +1
<eBremer> +1
<gtw> +1
<AndyS> +1
<tl> +1
<pchampin> +1
<ktk> +1
<niklasl> +1
<james> +0
<niklasl> Looks fine (I also got my wording three(?) weeks ago updated by pchampin as asked for by james on 6 feb).
<AZ> +1
<TallTed> +1
<pfps> +1
<doerthe> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve last two meetings' minutes
Publish RDF Primer as a draft note
<fsasaki> s/RESOLUTION: minutes from last two meetings approved//
ora: RDF primer will be a note
… we have not published a draft version yet
pa: we need a group decision to publish a first draft
… could be bundled in one resolution
… need a resolution to use echidna
… using echidna would be a good thing
ora: so every time we merge a pull request it publishes automatically?
pa: yes
ora: so we decide on publishing and then on echidna
<pchampin> https://
pa: this URI points to version 1.0 of primer
… version 1.1 is at RDF
… we want a version less short name
tl: would like to wait a week, but would not block publishing now
niklas: agree
… and good to have echidna on place
greg: support of dark mode work and style changes, should be propagated to other specs
niklas: agree
… would like to discuss some details on this, after this call or tomorrow
<ora> PROPOSAL: Publish RDF Primer as a Draft Note
ora: I can stay after the call
<gkellogg> +1
<fsasaki> +1
<niklasl> +1
<AndyS> +1
<ora> +1
<ktk> +1
<pchampin> +1
<doerthe> +1
<olaf> +1
<tl> +0
<gtw> +1
<james0> +1
<Dominik_T> +1
<Souri> +1
<TallTed> +1
<eBremer> +1
<AZ> +1
RESOLUTION: Publish RDF Primer as a Draft Note
ora: now about echidna
<ora> PROPOSAL: Adopt echidna for the RDF Primer
<TallTed> +1
<pchampin> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<fsasaki> +1
<ora> +1
<ktk> +1
<gtw> +1
<tl> +1
<james0> +1
<niklasl> +1
<doerthe> +1
<eBremer> +1
<olaf> +1
<Dominik_T> +1
<AndyS> +1
<Souri> +0
<AZ> +1
RESOLUTION: Adopt echidna for the RDF Primer
Closing stale issues
pa: will make this happen, the echidna setup and primer publication
pa: started to review stale issues systematically
… proposal to have the chairs and I to review the old actions and add comment if we think issues can be closed to assure that person receive notifications
… after two weeks if there is no notification we will close the issue
… any objection to this approach?
andyS: is this for all repos?
… started with rdf-star, but plan to do that with all repos
andyS: some issues are out of scope
… we can save us some time on these
<AndyS> w3c/
<gb> Issue 87 forbid redefining the same PREFIX; consider forbidding relative BASE (by VladimirAlexiev)
pa: priority is to focus on issues that are outdated
… there are many like these
… this should help to manage other issues more efficiently
ora: pa will not close the issues but mark them as candidates to be closed after two weeks
… so there is time to engage on them
<ora> PROPOSAL: Close stale/outdated/superseded issues as per pchampin's proposal
<TallTed> +1
<ora> +1
<pchampin> +1
<Dominik_T> +1
<fsasaki> +1
<AndyS> +1
<olaf> +1
<gtw> +1
<pfps> +1
<eBremer> +1
<doerthe> +1
<Souri> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<james0> +1
<ktk> +1
<niklasl> +1
<AZ> +1
<tl> +1
RESOLUTION: Close stale/outdated/superseded issues as per pchampin's proposal
pa: we were reaching limits of number of items in the project
ora: what does it mean to remove them?
pa: they are not visible via the project
… the issues are present but are no longer associated with the project
… we still keep the history
Prioritization of next week's topics 3
ora: everybody saw the poll on the triple terms I assume
… the poll closes before the meeting
<tl> w3c/
<gb> Issue 131 Streamline Turtle-star syntactic sugar and future-proof it for graphs (by rat10) [needs discussion]
tl: syntax issue we could discuss, no. 131
andyS: can we cover the other turtle syntax issue first, 132 on rdf star WG list
<AndyS> w3c/
<gb> Issue 132 Turtle Grammar: Collections and blank node property lists in triple terms (by doerthe) [needs discussion]
pfps: propose to discuss if we will address sparql errata
adrian: propose 132 first, then 131
(no objections)
pa: about the poll and triple terms in subject position
… we want to see if we will have consensus
… if we do not have consensus, the chairs will move forward and say: there was dissent.
pa: think we then do not need to add this to agenda
fsasaki: so far, we have a lot of I don't care options; is another poll planned with only two options before a decision is made?
felix: the poll has three options: agree, disagree, I do not care. if there is no clear picture, will you do a vote with 2 options?
ora: if there is no clear picture we may vote again, if one or the other is clear, we can decide
ora: we want to see if there is large support foror against this
ora: we will have a chairs meeting and then see if there is need for another poll in two weeks
ora: peter, are you ok with the current order of topics?
pfps: yes
ora: if we time box topics we may do 3 topics next week
gregg: named graphs in rdf xml, is that in scope?
… and then named graphs RDFa ...
ora: I would say: out of scope
… but we can discuss this
gregg: it is among the topics we can take up after REC publication
pfps: issue on xyz literal
… should this go away?
adrian: issue 84
… propose to put this to the list of topics
andyS: issue about versioning could be advanced
<pchampin> +1 to continue the discussion on versioning
andyS: number 141 on rdf-star WG
<gkellogg> w3c/rdf-star-wg#141
<gb> Issue 141 Which parties carry what costs of text/turtle changes, and do those outweigh which benefits for whom? (by RubenVerborgh) [needs discussion]
ora: we need PAs experiment results for that.
pa: will summarize next week
ora: two turtle issues, then versioning, then plain literal issue for next week
adrian: agree
… is rdf/xml and named graphs for later, do we agree on that?
ora: could go after REC publication
james: wondering if notsome topics are more important than 84
discussion on how the topics are being set for next week
pa: 84 is "plain literal", this is a low hanging fruit
… can be earlier in the agenda
<pchampin> w3c/
<gb> Issue 84 remove rdf:plainLiteral from Semantics? (by pfps) [needs discussion] [spec:substantive]
<niklasl> I think w3c/
<gb> Issue 14 Quoted triples not mentioned in primer (by kvistgaard) [needs discussion] [propose closing]
niklas: issue 14 can be closed now, see above
… what are triple terms is now in primer
ora: agree
adrian: current topic list is a combination of both types of topics
ora: enough material for next week, suggest to move on
Review of open actions, available at 4
ora: let us get 84 more up (on top)
pa: will work on rdf primer and echidna
… 145 can be closed
… pending PR on RDF concepts about unification of terminology, can be closed
… have merged PR
<pchampin> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 158 unify terminology for triples (by pchampin) [needs discussion] [spec:enhancement]
pa: we define one concept "rdf triple", then distinguish asserted triple and triple term
… it removes some redundancy in the text
… suggest to merge PR
tl: is the term "statement" in?
pa: have not touched occurrences of this term yet
… some said that triple terms are statements
… "statement" is used in the introduction
… there has not been further changes to this term besides the ones mentioned
pfps: suggest that editors can reject certain changes
gregg: ambiguity in notion of asserted triples
… was not clear from the text
andyS: suggest to merge the PR
… pa said that other things need work
gregg: fine by me
TallTed: open items after the merge should become issues
… I think these should not be only editor's disgression
gregg: editors should control what goes into the doc
… the editors are bound by the decision of the WG
andyS: clarity is important
… many decisions come down to value judgment
… they are not factual matters
ora: want to see some of the items not go up to the WG
… if there are some discussions between two people, they should try to resolve it
andyS: it is too easy to reject
… there is no compromise at the moment
… people say the same thing again and again
ora: I would like to see editos to be able to exercise judgment
… but do not disagree with andy
niklas: there are activities making sure that spec text says certain propositions
… did not make a PR for that but work on wording
… but agree with what andy says, hard if we have to resolve all value judgment in complete consensus for every wording
TallTed: I feel that this is addressed at me
… my suggestions are for new readers outside of our group
… please clarify what does not work with my suggestions
… interjection etc. matters
ora: agree, my comments were not targeted on you
TallTed: transferring things into an issue will not create a WG discussion automatically
… it just starts a discussion about (dis)agreement
<pfps> https://
TallTed: if editor feels strongly about it, it may be something for the WG
pa: what ora said
… I am in favor of discussing issues async if possible
… do you expect the editors to create the issues?
TallTed: yes
pa: think merging PRs is a reasonable course of action
<gkellogg> IMO, the person form whom this issue is important should raise the issue
pfps: disagree with pa, editors need to respond to WG comments
… should be able to say: my judgment is not best way to say this
… person who brought this up can go along, if they care enough they should address the issuue?
<gb> Pull Request 115 add section about 'unstar' mapping (by pchampin) [spec:enhancement]