W3C

RDF-star WG biweekly meeting

06 March 2025

Attendees

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

Meeting minutes

Approval of minutes from the last two meetings

<pfps> minutes look fine to me

Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2

<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes of last two meetings

<pfps> +1

<AZ> +1

<ora> +1

<fsasaki> +1

<eBremer> +1

<ktk> +1

<AndyS> +1

<niklasl> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<olaf> +1

<Souri> +1

<gtw> +1

<james> +1

No objecttions.

<TallTed> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of last two meetings

Prioritization of next week's topics 3

<pfps> There are two long-standing issues that should be resolved #128 and #127

<gb> Issue 127 what properties can or should link to triple terms? (by afs) [needs discussion]

<gb> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing]

ora: I'd like a balance between easy and difficult things

AndyS: We said we would review our documents to see if they are on schedule

<draggett> I note that the Primer isn't published yet.

ora: pchampin was supposed to publish that, but isn't here today

ora: I like the idea of getting a sense of where we are in respect to the plan

<pfps> I think that completeness of entailment should be discussed in the semantics meeting tomorrow.

ora: even the less important items need to be progressed

<draggett> This is an action item on everybody

gkellogg: there are 20 documents to track

ora: the Primer is important to publish

AndyS: we have a resolution on publishing that one

<draggett> Is the RDF 1.2 document ready?

pfps: there are some pull requests to deal with first

<draggett> are concepts and semantics aligned?

pfps: there's a PR on semantics, but it is currently blocked

AndyS: that requires some coordination...

pfps: we want to avoid things happening after the fact

<draggett> we need to progress the text on literals

AndyS: are the top 4 PR's ready to merge?

pfps: I want to avoid overriding people's wording suggestions without some review

pfps: previously, the editor made changes for the WG to review, but that's not what we're following right now, which makes things harder

ora: would it make sense next week to focus on which PRs are ready to merge?

pfps: long standing objections to parts of the semantics

<draggett> we should look at these and vote on them

pfps: talks us through the outstanding choices

enrico: can we review all these tomorrow, and close some of them

ora: if you can take that on tomorrow, that would be great

pfps: one of the requests is from James Andersen (not in the WG)

ora: the semantics group should resolve as many requests as possible tomorrow

ora: that would get us closer to a draft that the WG could review

ora: Adrian you and I could discuss how to proceed

pfps: the semantics group should vote on the semantic related issues

ora: I am in favor of that

pfps: I will draw up a list of which issues to discuss in tomorrow's call

Enrico: I wll include that in the agenda

ora: we can then discuss the remaining open issues in next Thursday's call

pfps: these should be listed by Tuesday

Adrian: we will discuss this in the next chairs call

<niklasl> Sounds good to me.

Review of open actions, available at 4

pfps: I did my action

ora: there was an action for Enrico, have you done that?

Enrico: I will work on it tomorrow morning

ora: one for niklasl

TallTed: can we put a link to the actions into the minutes as we close them

Review of pull requests, available at 5

ora: the rest are for pchampin who isn't here today, so I think we can move on

pfps: the one about plain literals

ora: I remember we had a discussion on this

pfps: there was a complaint about it, should we say "deprecate"?

<draggett> it is kind of deprecated anyway in OWL and RIF

ora: we can leave the term in the schema, but mark it as deprecated

pfps: there are few editorial comments to merge in

ora: we you pick up the substantive PRs in tomorrow's semantics call?

pfps: yes

AndyS: new PRs on SPARQL docs, in progress

ora: anything else we can progress today?

AndyS: I will close #197

<gb> Issue 197 not found

ora: what about the 3 on tests? They've been around for a while now

AndyS: we're agreed about what needs to be done

gtw: I will try to make some progress on that (??)

ora: what's blocking #165?

<gb> Issue 165 not found

AndyS explains ...

ora: I can't spot anything else we can work on today

pfps: I tried to categorise the issues

Issue Triage, available at 6

pfps: I've put the proposed closing marker on several of the issues

ora: should we look at those now?

pfps: maybe, there's quite a few of them

ora: if it is editorial and we've reviewed them, then let's close them

<pfps> I closed w3c/rdf-concepts#83

<gb> CLOSED Issue 83 define list of RDF serialization formats (by VladimirAlexiev) [propose closing] [spec:editorial]

<AndyS> Closed -- w3c/sparql-query#197 (replaces by 194)

<gb> CLOSED Pull Request 197 Renames 'RDFterm-equal' to 'sameValue' (by hartig)

james: normative points need to be in the specs, not the primer

<pfps> I agree with Andy

james: which MIME types need to be supported

AndyS: isn't that what HTTP content negotiation is for?

TallTed: we do not require implementation of all the serialisations

james: if any item in this list normative, and only so described in the Primer?

<gtw> I don't think protocol requries any specific RDF formats.

<niklasl> https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/ comes to mind

TallTed: the SPARQL spec might require something on this

AndyS: it is used in examples, but I don't see any normative text on required serialisations

gkellogg: one could use yaml, but I don't see any evidence for normative requirements for serialisations

<AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/#graph-management

<niklasl> See also https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#rdf-documents

AndyS: SPARQL in section 5 does constrain the serialisations

james: I don't see a need to change this

TallTed: if you get one serialisation you can transform it to another via open source libraries, so the serialisation isn't critical

ora: we've had these libraries for a very long time

james: we could improve the wording (in SPARQL) if we think it is ambiguous

ora: suggests james raises an issue so that we can clarify this

james: okay

ora: we've come to the end of this meeting

Summary of resolutions

  1. Approve minutes of last two meetings
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/greg:/gtw:/

Succeeded: s/can/can't/

Succeeded: s/SPARQL spec does require/SPARQL spec might require/

Succeeded: s/I note that the Primer isn't published yet./<pfps> I note that the Primer isn't published yet.

Succeeded: s/This is an action item on everybody/<pfps> This is an action item on everybody/

Succeeded: s/Is the RDF 1.2 document ready?/<pfps> Is the RDF 1.2 document ready?/

Succeeded: s/<pfps> I note that the Primer isn't published yet./<draggett> I note that the Primer isn't published yet.

Succeeded: s/<pfps> This is an action item on everybody/<draggett> This is an action item on everybody/

Succeeded: s/<pfps> Is the RDF 1.2 document ready?/<draggett> Is the RDF 1.2 document ready?/

Succeeded: s/are concepts and semantics aligned?/<draggett> are concepts and semantics aligned?/

Succeeded: s/we need to progress the text on literals/<draggett> we need to progress the text on literals/

Succeeded: s/we should look at these and vote on them/<draggett> we should look at these and vote on them/

Succeeded: s/pfps talks us through the outstanding choices/pfps: talks us through the outstanding choices/

Succeeded: s/it is kind of deprecated anyway in OWL and RIF/<draggett> it is kind of deprecated anyway in OWL and RIF/

Maybe present: Adrian, enrico

All speakers: Adrian, AndyS, enrico, gkellogg, gtw, james, ora, pfps, TallTed

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