W3C

RDF-star WG biweekly meeting

20 March 2025

Attendees

Present
AndyS, AZ, doerthe, eBremer, enrico, gkellogg, gtw, james, ktk, niklasl, olaf, ora, pchampin, pfps, Souri, tl, Tpt
Regrets
-
Chair
ora
Scribe
doerthe

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/rdf-star-wg#131 (comment)

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/rdf-concepts#168

<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/respec#4871

<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/rdf-turtle#56 is from outside the group and has been hanging around since April 2024

<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

Summary of resolutions

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

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/HELP/Streamline Turtle-star syntactic sugar and future-proof it for graphs

Succeeded: s/contraversal/controversal

Succeeded: s/October/April 2024/

Maybe present: niklas, TallTed

All speakers: AndyS, enrico, ktk, niklas, niklasl, ora, pchampin, pfps, TallTed, tl, Tpt

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