W3C

RDF-Star WG biweekly meeting

20 February 2025

Attendees

Present
AndyS, AZ, doerthe, Dominik_T, eBremer, fsasaki, gkellogg, gtw, james0, ktk, niklasl, olaf, ora, pchampin, Souri, TallTed, tl
Regrets
-
Chair
ora
Scribe
fsasaki, pchampin

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://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/

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/rdf-turtle#87

<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/rdf-star-wg#131

<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/rdf-star-wg#132

<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/rdf-semantics#84

<gb> Issue 84 remove rdf:plainLiteral from Semantics? (by pfps) [needs discussion] [spec:substantive]

<niklasl> I think w3c/rdf-primer#14 can be closed now.

<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/rdf-concepts#158

<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://www.goodreads.com/quotes/494930-i-have-spent-most-of-the-day-putting-in-a

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]

Summary of resolutions

  1. Approve last two meetings' minutes
  2. Publish RDF Primer as a Draft Note
  3. Adopt echidna for the RDF Primer
  4. Close stale/outdated/superseded issues as per pchampin's proposal
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/RESOLUTION: minutes from last two meetings approved//

Failed: s/RESOLUTION: minutes from last two meetings approved//

Succeeded: s/happen/happen, the echidna setup and primer publication/

Succeeded: s/large for /large support for

Succeeded: s/about why /if not

Maybe present: adrian, felix, greg, gregg, james, niklas, pa, pfps

All speakers: adrian, andyS, felix, fsasaki, greg, gregg, james, niklas, ora, pa, pfps, TallTed, tl

Active on IRC: AndyS, AZ, doerthe, Dominik_T, eBremer, fsasaki, gkellogg, gtw, james, james0, ktk, niklasl, olaf, ora, pchampin, pfps, Souri, TallTed, tl