Meeting minutes
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2
<pfps> Minutes look good.
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last two meetings' minutes.
<ora> +1
<enrico> +1
<niklasl> +1
<ktk> +1
<Souri> +1
<AndyS> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<doerthe> +1
<Tpt> +1
<eBremer> +1
<olaf> +1
<TallTed> +1
<pfps> +1
<james> +1
<tl> +0.5 (wasn't there for all of them)
<pchampin> +1 (for the one I attended)
RESOLUTION: Approve last two meetings' minutes.
Prioritization of next week's topics 3
ora: any suggestions?
pfps: there are things tagged as "needs discussion" but we already discussed them, could we please close?
AndyS: A couple of weeks ago we discussed a possible RDF semantics review, I think we can now do that.
ora: should we all read the document and discuss next week?
AndyS: yes
ora: how much time do we need?
enrico: that highly depends on the discussion we have
ora: then let's decide on a "back-up" topic
pfps: we also need to discuss at some point SPARQL exists errata being out of scope or not
tl: we also had the issues we planned for last week but did not discuss as I was not present, maybe we should add some of these for next time
tl: propose issue Streamline Turtle-star syntactic sugar and future-proof it for graphs
pfps: I would like to have a concrete proposal there
<gb> Issue 131 Streamline Turtle-star syntactic sugar and future-proof it for graphs (by rat10) [needs discussion]
<pfps> #131/
<gb> Issue 131 Streamline Turtle-star syntactic sugar and future-proof it for graphs (by rat10) [needs discussion]
<pfps> q_
<AndyS> e.g. w3c/
ora: could we have a summary for the issue?
tl: I can prepare a summary till Monday
ora: what else?
AndyS: unstar? versioning? are there discussions we still need to have there?
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to sparql exists ERRATA?
pfps: I would like to have the sparql exists ERRATA decided
pfps: but that is a rather big issue
<TallTed> pure bikeshedding, but important -- "unstar" should not be a thing, since "star" has become "1.2"
ora: I learned that there was a community group only for that. I am not sure what to do here.
ktk: It makes sense to discuss whether or not we want to discuss this topic
niklasl: I would like to answer AndyS' question about open issues on unstar and so on. There is an issue I wanted to make on additinal predicates we might need.
ora: let's have the meta discussion about the SPARQL EXISTS next week then
Review of open actions, available at 4
ora: then we have three issues for next week
ora: where are we with the actions?
pchampin: Unfortunately, I still did not get an answer for the issue that we are out of charter and can therefore not publish
pchampin: I try to address the issues again tomorrow
ora: what is the status on issue63
pchampin: I left it open to always check for all documents
ora: what about the deletion of the reification part
enrico: it was not done because we needed to discuss whether or not we delete more of the appendix (I accidentally did that)
ora: do we need discussion there?
niklasl: We had that discussion and I think I remember that we should not remove everything without discussion. Question is for example where lists go if we remove them from semantics.
… I had some proposals for that
ora: to me it sounds like we should discuss that
ora: maybe next week since I do not expect that to be controversal
ora: anything else from the action list?
ora: what is the status for reference to completeness?
<pchampin> FTR, I have another pending action but I'd like to rediscus it tomorrow at the Semantics TF meeting
enrico: that is closed
pchampin: I also have one action I'd like to discuss tomorrow (issue 149)
enrico: we can discuss that tomorrow
Review of pull requests, available at 5
ora: there was something on the semantics? was that merged?
enrico: waits for your approval
ora: I will
… what about the others?
pfps: some of them are waiting for a PR in concepts
<pchampin> ktk: doerthe, TallTed asked for a clarification from you on w3c/rdf-semantics#110
<gb> Pull Request 110 Update of GrdfD (by doerthe)
<pchampin> doerthe: yes, this should be easy, there is no disagreement
pfps: I suggest to close the issue about literals
pfps: what about the issues on dark mode?
Tpt: they are blocked because of styling questions (code blocks)
pfps: please avoid introducing new problems by your fixes
pfps: is there an official W3C solution?
pchampin: I will check
ora: more issues we could get rid of today? there are at least 6 on css
ora: there are also some on tests, what about those?
AndyS: some are syntax tests on which we need to decide
AndyS: the issue on using triple terms.Ruben did a conversion which still need to be checked
AndyS: isn't the update in concepts done (168)
niklasl: it is done but I wanted to wait for more feedback
niklasl: I plan to merge it in a few days
<niklasl> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 168 Update figure style of triple terms (by niklasl)
ora: any objections to that merge?
TallTed: there is an issue here which is related to the EBNF in dark mode
tl: I remember that the visualisation of concepts was more appealing than the primer
niklas: it is a respec issue, but it is complicated. I will add a cross reference to the issue
Tpt: the issues are related to come conflicts between the style sheets (respec sets a fixed css which conflicts to ours)
<Tpt> The ReSpec issue: speced/
<gb> Issue 4871 color contrast issues (by pkra) [bug]
pchampin: there are two issues in 168, only one is on the styling and I recommend to set this in a separate issue
ora: I think we should not have to deal with css etc. but on content
ora: propasal: we merge 168 and deal with the css issues later?
<tl> is there a link to a preview where the images are shown?
niklasl: maybe we could enforce light mode?
… but of course that could conflict with peoples preferences
pfps: maybe that depends on W3C and their preferences, not our opinion
pchampin: of course W3C likes these things to be fixed, but I also agree that this is not our main goal
Issue Triage, available at 6
pfps: There is the issue on N3, could we close that one?
pfps: I also wonder how we deal with external requests/issues in general. Who tracks them, who closes them?
ora: should we look at these in the chair meetings?
ktk: discuss how we handle them, or discuss them?
ora: I would quickly go through them
<pfps> w3c/
<gb> Issue 56 Reference Notation3 (by nichtich) [propose closing] [spec:editorial] [wr:open]
pfps: maybe we can create a new tag?
pchampin: for the specific issue: I think we should close it
… I think if we address that issue, it should not be in turtle
<gb> Action 150 Create note on triple term owlification (on niklasl) due 2025-03-07
pchampin: maybe we can add that to the discussion how triple terms relate to named grahs, then we can add a discussion on graph terms and triple terms
<Zakim> tl, you wanted to ask where we are w.r.t. current time limits, and what extensions are discussed? just a short overview if possible
tl: how are we time wise? could we get some overview?
ktk: we had the extension, and wait for a final decision. It was a two years extension
AndyS: We need to get all the tests done