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/
<gb> CLOSED Issue 83 define list of RDF serialization formats (by VladimirAlexiev) [propose closing] [spec:editorial]
<AndyS> Closed -- w3c/
<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://
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://
<niklasl> See also https://
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