15:59:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:59:45 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/03/13-rdf-star-irc
15:59:45 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-star
15:59:52 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
15:59:59 <james> james has joined #rdf-star
16:00:02 <gkellogg> present+
16:00:08 <james> present+
16:00:19 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF-star WG biweekly focused meeting -- 2025-03-13 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0046d666-d3e8-4032-89e4-8b9a3e6ff40f/20250313T120000/
16:00:25 <TallTed> present+
16:00:30 <Tpt> present+
16:00:36 <olaf> present+
16:00:42 <pchampin> present+
16:00:51 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0046d666-d3e8-4032-89e4-8b9a3e6ff40f/20250313T120000/
16:00:51 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:00:51 <agendabot> agenda+ Update about WG vote about triple terms in the subject position
16:00:51 <agendabot> agenda+ map the annotation syntax to rdfs:states -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128
16:00:51 <agendabot> agenda+ the change to replace "must" with "should" for ill-typed term values should be reverted pending further discussion -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/147
16:00:52 <gtw> present+
16:00:53 <agendabot> agenda+ what properties can or should link to triple terms? -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/127
16:00:56 <niklasl> present+
16:00:56 <agendabot> agenda+ Streamline Turtle-star syntactic sugar and future-proof it for graphs -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/131
16:00:59 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
16:01:05 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-star WG biweekly focused meeting
16:01:06 <ora> present+
16:01:11 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-star
16:01:11 <TallTed> chair: ora
16:01:14 <ora> chair+
16:01:18 <eBremer> present+
16:01:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/13-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:01:24 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:01:26 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
16:01:28 <AZ> present+
16:01:33 <enrico> present+
16:01:35 <pfps> present+
16:01:36 <AZ> scribe+
16:01:49 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/03/07-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:01:50 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/03/14-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:02:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/13-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:02:09 <ktk> Zakim, open item 1
16:02:09 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Update about WG vote about triple terms in the subject position -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:02:26 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:02:30 <AZ> ora: I wrote a summary of the vote
16:02:32 <Souri> present+
16:02:37 <AZ> ... and I got some more comments
16:03:12 <AZ> ... I need to take some time to analyse these comments
16:03:19 <james> q+
16:03:27 <ora> ack james
16:03:27 <AZ> ... this will be done before next meeting
16:03:52 <AZ> james: if I am the target of the comments I am available for discussion
16:04:07 <AZ> ora: I may need to contact you for some clarification
16:05:59 <AZ> ora: AndyS, you sent a mail to the list commenting on RDF semantics
16:06:16 <AZ> ... do you have something to add to the agenda
16:06:39 <AZ> enrico: regarding RDF semantics being ready for review
16:06:49 <AZ> ... we closed the PRs
16:07:16 <AZ> s/the PRs/most of the PRs
16:07:35 <AZ> ... PR 91 is waiting for approval
16:08:10 <AZ> ... issue 49 needs decision
16:08:35 <AZ> ... I added another issue on interpoletion lemma
16:08:59 <AZ> ... we need to check if it still holds with the new semantics
16:09:15 <AZ> ora: is it related to issue 76?
16:09:33 <AZ> enrico: no, this is closed
16:10:30 <AZ> enrico: the interpoletion lemma is important for SPARQL so we need to prove it
16:10:43 <pchampin> q+
16:11:43 <AZ> ktk: do we need to vote about this or do we start reviews when the PR is closed?
16:11:45 <ora> ack pchampin
16:11:51 <AZ> ora: no need for a vote
16:12:28 <AZ> pchampin: publishing with echidna does not work anymore because the charter finished on February
16:13:27 <AZ> ... the new charter in place will make all work again
16:13:53 <pchampin> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-semantics/spec/
16:13:55 <AZ> ... but we still have the Editor's drafts
16:14:22 <AZ> ... we can use them if needed for our internal reviews
16:14:33 <Souri> s/on February/in February/
16:14:50 <enrico> q+
16:14:51 <ktk> q?
16:14:58 <ora> ack enrico
16:15:33 <AZ> enrico: should my name be added to RDF 1.2 Semantics as an editor?
16:15:39 <pfps> add Enrico!
16:15:40 <AZ> ora: absolutely yes
16:15:47 <pchampin> +1
16:15:47 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:15:47 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- map the annotation syntax to rdfs:states -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:16:29 <AZ> ora: Thomas (who raised the issue) is not here today
16:17:14 <ktk> regrets+ tl, gkellog, fsasaki
16:18:09 <AZ> gkellogg: the WG approved the syntax but we have not discussed Thomas' concerns and there has been evolution of the syntax in the meantime
16:18:17 <ktk> s/, gkellog//
16:18:24 <TallTed> q+
16:18:31 <ora> ack TallTed
16:18:58 <pfps> q+
16:19:01 <AZ> TallTed: we shoud discuss this with Thomas before taking a decision
16:19:02 <ora> ack pfps
16:19:18 <james> q+
16:19:22 <ora> ack james
16:19:56 <AZ> james: Thomas sent a message saying that because he is not present, he would not be able to argue on this issue
16:20:05 <AZ> ora: we'll postpone the discussion
16:20:25 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
16:20:28 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:20:28 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- the change to replace "must" with "should" for ill-typed term values should be reverted pending further discussion -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/147
16:20:31 <Zakim> ... -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:20:34 <Dominik_T> +present
16:20:43 <james> q+
16:20:52 <pfps> From Thomas:  t is unfortunate that i can't attend a meeting that has 3 issues that i raised on the agenda, so let me at least provide some comments.
16:20:52 <pfps> w.r.t. agenda items 2 and 4 i still think they'd both be valuable additions to RDF 1.2, but i don't see enough support for them right now and therefore am fine with moving them to the "maintenance" phase if no one else takes them up right now.
16:20:54 <ora> ack james
16:21:00 <pfps> q+
16:21:04 <Souri> s/+present/present+/
16:21:14 <AZ> james: this issue is from me
16:21:46 <AZ> ... this change was made to the document without making enough discussion
16:21:51 <pchampin> Thomas wrote "w.r.t. agenda items 2 and 4 i still think they'd both be valuable additions to RDF 1.2, but i don't see enough support for them right now and therefore am fine with moving them to the "maintenance" phase if no one else takes them up right now" in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2025Mar/0014.html
16:21:58 <AZ> ... I consider it introduces a deficiency in the spec
16:23:38 <AZ> ... the argument from pfps is that a graph with ill-typed literal does not mean anything and therefore must be rejected, which I disagree with
16:24:06 <pfps> q+ to disagree with the characterization of my stance
16:24:16 <AZ> ... the argument that it is complicated to do is not receivable because I did it and I know it is not complicated to do
16:24:26 <TallTed> q+
16:24:27 <ora> ack pfps
16:24:27 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to disagree with the characterization of my stance
16:24:41 <AZ> ... we need to know what the group would prefer to do
16:25:12 <AZ> pfps: my argument was different
16:25:47 <Dominik_T> rrsagent, draft the minutes
16:25:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/13-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T
16:26:06 <AZ> ... I think it should be permissible for implementations to dismiss triples that have ill-typed literals
16:26:26 <ora> ack TallTed
16:26:30 <AZ> ... it also permits interesting optimisations
16:26:47 <AZ> TallTed: I feel strongly that the "MUST" is important
16:27:16 <james> q+
16:27:21 <AZ> ora: also, implementations don't always follow the "MUST"s even when they are explicit
16:27:44 <ora> ack james
16:27:48 <AZ> TallTed: I think it's not right to claim conformance and ignoring the MUST
16:29:02 <AZ> james: there may be situation where we do something not in according with the standard, but this must be justified, while not having to change the standard
16:29:02 <AndyS> q+
16:29:08 <ora> ack AndyS
16:29:19 <TallTed> +1 departing from the spec *with documentation* (or better, with a switch) is far more acceptable
16:29:52 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:30:01 <doerthe> present+
16:30:07 <james> q+
16:30:07 <gkellogg> q+
16:30:12 <AZ> AndyS: it's unrealistic to enforce that claiming conformance requires proving *every* MUST is respected
16:30:39 <ora> ack james
16:30:55 <AZ> ... obligation to implement all MUST to claim conformance is too high a price
16:31:25 <gtw> q+
16:31:45 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:31:59 <AZ> james: there are cases where there isn't conformance because there is a bug (unwanted), and other times, we do not conform for a reason we can argue for
16:32:03 <TallTed> q+
16:32:24 <AZ> gkellogg: it is so hard to get every MUST right
16:32:49 <AZ> ... "claiming conformance" is a broad phrase
16:33:28 <ora> ack gtw
16:34:10 <james> q+
16:34:15 <ora> ack TallTed
16:34:37 <AZ> gregwilliams: if you decide that in your case you have reason not to implement, then there should be a "SHOULD"
16:35:34 <AZ> TallTed: it is generally accepted that implementation can break a MUST if there is a recorded note that explain what and why breaks
16:36:12 <AZ> ... but being allowed to chose what to implement or not in the spec is a problem
16:36:17 <gtw> s/gregwilliams:/gtw:/
16:37:01 <ora> ack james
16:37:17 <AZ> ... the MUST for interop, the SHOULD is for mostly interop
16:37:46 <AZ> james: saying "I find it to hard to do" is not sufficient
16:37:48 <pchampin> q?
16:37:53 <ktk> q+
16:37:57 <ora> ack ktk
16:37:58 <AZ> ... unless it is truly extremely hard to do
16:38:42 <james> q+
16:38:44 <AZ> ktk: RDF is decades old and we know that this MUST is not as widely implemented as some may think
16:38:55 <ora> ack james
16:38:56 <AZ> ... it's clearly a SHOULD from existing practices
16:39:47 <AZ> james: from pchampin's experiment, it was not conclusive whether implementations widely respect the MUST or not
16:40:48 <pfps> civility would be useful just now
16:41:01 <pchampin> q+
16:41:20 <AZ> TallTed: I am on james' side
16:41:24 <pchampin> q-
16:41:28 <ora> STRAWPOLL: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/147 do you support "MUST" (as opposed to "SHOULD")?
16:41:28 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/147 -> Issue 147 the change to replace "must" with "should" for ill-typed term values should be reverted pending further discussion (by lisp) [needs discussion] [spec:substantive]
16:41:40 <AZ> +1 for MUST
16:41:44 <ktk> -1
16:41:44 <Tpt> -1 for SHOULD
16:41:45 <ora> -1
16:41:46 <pchampin> -1
16:41:46 <Souri> -1
16:41:47 <gtw> -1
16:41:49 <james> +1 for must
16:41:51 <pfps> -1
16:41:52 <doerthe> 0
16:41:54 <gkellogg> -1
16:41:54 <enrico> -1
16:41:54 <TallTed> +1 MUST
16:41:55 <niklasl> -1
16:41:55 <AndyS> 0 - don't care - Jena accepts ill-formed literals
16:41:59 <Dominik_T> -1
16:42:04 <olaf> -1
16:42:08 <eBremer> -1
16:42:24 <niklasl> q+
16:42:30 <ora> ack niklasl
16:42:54 <AndyS> s/ill-formed/ill-typed/
16:43:11 <AZ> niklasl: suppose there is an implementation that recognises xsd:boolean and nothing else
16:44:18 <ora> q+
16:44:25 <AZ> ... what's the practical bad consequences if it supports or not the MUST?
16:44:33 <ora> ack ora
16:45:22 <gkellogg> q+
16:45:28 <AZ> ora: another way to put is "if we put SHOULD, do we achieve better interoperability overall, given that some implem don't conform at the moment"
16:45:36 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:45:59 <TallTed> q+
16:46:22 <AZ> gkellogg: it is odd to use MUST when ill-type depends on datatype support, which is optional
16:46:26 <james> q+
16:46:35 <niklasl> +1 to gkellogg
16:46:36 <ora> ack TallTed
16:47:23 <AZ> TallTed: the part with MUST extends the case when you do not recognise datatypes to the case when you recognise some of them
16:48:11 <AZ> ... if you put the wrong datatype on a string you should still be able to construct a graph
16:48:28 <ora> ack james
16:48:30 <Dominik_T> rrsagent, draft the minutes
16:48:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/13-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T
16:49:16 <pchampin> q+
16:49:23 <AZ> james: ill-formed terms are not different from normal terms when you don't recognise datatypes
16:50:17 <AZ> ... every documents should pass through every implementation in the same way
16:50:43 <ora> ack pchampin
16:51:13 <james> q+
16:52:04 <AZ> pchampin: ill-formed litteral in a datatype I don't support is very different from all-formed litteral when I support the datatype
16:53:04 <AZ> ... james, you responded to one argument but you did not respond to the argument that it is how the state of implementations is
16:53:16 <ora> ack james
16:54:42 <AZ> james: a term that has an unknown datatype is not more or less problematic than a term with a known datatype
16:55:11 <AZ> ora: can we get a consensus on this?
16:55:20 <james> q+
16:55:36 <TallTed> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/60
16:55:37 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/60 -> CLOSED Issue 60 Drop the requirement to support ill-typed literals with recognized datatype IRIs (by wouterbeek) [spec:enhancement]
16:55:44 <AZ> ora: we can formally vote on this next time
16:56:05 <ora> ack james
16:56:46 <AZ> TallTed: I will not formally object on this though
16:56:50 <ora> PROPOSAL: Adopt "SHOULD" for https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/147
16:56:50 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/147 -> Issue 147 the change to replace "must" with "should" for ill-typed term values should be reverted pending further discussion (by lisp) [needs discussion] [spec:substantive]
16:57:00 <ktk> +1
16:57:00 <AZ> james: I will not formally object either
16:57:01 <ora> +1
16:57:03 <Souri> +1
16:57:04 <Tpt> +1
16:57:05 <gtw> +1
16:57:06 <gkellogg> +1
16:57:06 <doerthe> +1
16:57:07 <eBremer> +1
16:57:07 <james> -1
16:57:09 <enrico> +1
16:57:10 <Dominik_T> +1
16:57:14 <olaf> +1
16:57:15 <TallTed> -0.7
16:57:26 <pfps> +1
16:57:30 <AZ> -0.86
16:57:46 <niklasl> +0.9
16:57:51 <james> -.99
16:57:54 <pchampin> +1
16:58:00 <AndyS> +0.5
16:58:13 <ora> RESOLVED: : Adopt "SHOULD" for https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/147
16:58:13 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/147 -> Issue 147 the change to replace "must" with "should" for ill-typed term values should be reverted pending further discussion (by lisp) [needs discussion] [spec:substantive]
16:58:13 <AZ> TallTed: "-1" would mean that one wants to formally object
16:58:35 <TallTed> s/one wants/one is likely/
16:59:10 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:59:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/13-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
16:59:21 <pfps> pfps has left #rdf-star
16:59:53 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
17:03:27 <niklasl> niklasl has left #rdf-star
17:30:25 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:41:48 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:56:57 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:39:58 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:53:21 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:11:42 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:28:53 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:47:19 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:08:18 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
<pchampin> s/all-formed/well-formed
<pchampin> s/james, you responded to one argument but you did not respond to the argument that it is how the state of implementations is/james, you keep objecting to the same argument ("difficult to implement") but never respond to the other arguments that have been raised ("reality of implementations", "potential for optimization")