Meeting minutes
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2
<pfps> minutes look good to me
<ktk> PROPOSAL: Approve last two meetings' minutes.
<niklasl> +1
<tl> +1
<ktk> +1
<AZ> +1
<eBremer> +1
<olaf> +1
<james> +1
<AndyS> +1
<pchampin> +0.5 (was absent last week)
<gtw> +1
<pfps> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<Tpt> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve last two meetings' minutes.
Proposal for next week's discussion
<ktk> https://
<pfps> Are we at the stage of reviewing Concepts?
<ktk> https://
ktk: comments on peter's question?
pchampin: still need to do a pass on the issues (most of them seem to be minor)
<niklasl> w3c/
<gb> Issue 145 Clarify introduction of triple terms and reification (by niklasl) [ms:CR]
niklas (points pchampin to issue 145)
olaf: have no open todos myself
gkellogg: changes to RDF schema, and move datatype definitions from schema to concepts have been discussed. should be done before publishing
… interaction between documents makes it hard to publish concepts, schema and semantics seperately from each other (at different times)
… getting closer to publishing, need some effort, but need to split our efforts between those three documenst
ktk: so concepts wil not be a topic next week
andys: pr on conceprts wrt non normative wording [???]
… we have to deal with it
ktk: propose to making this first topic next week
gkellogg: we don't want to make any broad changes wrt suggestions versus normative wording
… don't try to be comprehensive across all documents
… would reject w3c/rdfconcepts#182
<pfps> +1 to rejecting the PR
<AndyS> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 182 Declare advisement level keywords for non-normative content in Conformance (by csarven) [needs discussion] [spec:editorial]
<pchampin> w3c/rdf-star-wg#141
<gb> Issue 141 Which parties carry what costs of text/turtle changes, and do those outweigh which benefits for whom? (by RubenVerborgh) [needs discussion]
<AndyS> Ruben's write-up -- https://
pchampin: suggest to discuss issue #141. proposal by ruben has been made. i like it uand would like us to make a decision. we need at least n-triples to be published in a first round, to make the test work. so this should be on the top of our list
<gb> Issue 141 Which parties carry what costs of text/turtle changes, and do those outweigh which benefits for whom? (by RubenVerborgh) [needs discussion]
pchampin: suggest that everyone has a look at this so that we can make a decision next week
pfps: didn't we talk about 147?
pchampin: seems like we could close it
ktk: same for 128
pfps: will check if anything in 147 has to be done, but it has been voted on and can be closed
tl: I think #128 still needs to be discussed
<gb> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing]
tL: 128 can't be closed just yet
andys: sparql exists
ktk: discussion about task force for sparql exists
tl: the graphical representations in concept and primer are conflating the asserted statement and the triple term
… this goes against what has been long discussed in the WG
… I need to sort my thoughts, I'll prepare something for next week
AndyS: is this the syntax discussion?
tl: no we voted on that. We need people to understand that the reified statement and the statement itself are two different things.
… I'll provide a summary that decouples it from the annotation syntax.
<niklasl> Note that triple terms are no longer distinct from triples: a triple term is a triple used as an object. The triple itself denotes a proposition. If the triple is in the graph (which is a set of triples), it is a fact in the interpretation.
Review of open actions, available at 4
<ktk> Actions: https://
pchampin: first one (?) is not yet done for the primer. second one can be paused
… first draft note of the primer has been published.
<AndyS> https://
https://
pchampin: links now point to the latest published versions unless they ask for a specific version
… until we make it a note rather than a draft note
pfps: 151 is done
… will be closed
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Action 150 Create note on triple term owlification (on niklasl) due 2025-03-07
niklas: not much progress on that one
pfps: issue #####? came out of a semantics meeting two weeks ago
Review of pull requests, available at 5
pfps: we need new entailment test and haven't decided yet who does it
<ktk> https://
<pfps> The semantics task force meeting might want to discuss w3c/
<gb> Action 115 add tests for entailment of triple terms (on )
<niklasl> This is the respec PR: speced/
<gb> Pull Request 4925 Support dark mode toggle for SVGs and highlight.js (by niklasl)
gkellogg: a number of issues relate to dark mode, and niklas is working on something
ktk: propose to ignore those for now
… so sparql remains
gtw: working on code points
olaf: will work on sparql query
gkellogg: same term/same value seems t have a lot to do with NAN, but we can't test those, so why making it normative?
andys: worthwhile to spend some time on it as long as the documents are open
… functions and operators handling values ####?
ktk: so this one stays open?
olaf: just looked at it, i will approve it right away
gkellogg: more work on tests outstanding. also RDF/XML...
Issue Triage, available at
andys: there's a proposed closing tab as i've just seen. maybe could be made use of
<ktk> https://
w3c/rdf-turtle#63
ktk: propose to use it
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> CLOSED Issue 63 need name for `~` separating `iri`/`BlankNode` production and `reifier` that follows (by TallTed) [propose closing]
w3c/rdf-semantics#51
<gb> Issue 51 HTML code in the spec has bad quality (by domel) [propose closing] [spec:editorial]
gkellogg: still like the code quality to improve
pchampin: took an action to make dominics changes more reviewable but didn't have time
w3c/rdf-concepts#139
<gb> Issue 139 Merge unstar mapping PR into RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax (by rat10) [ms:CR] [propose closing]
w3c/rdf-concepts#144
<gb> Issue 144 the term identity comparison must be defined for triple terms (by lisp) [propose closing]
w3c/rdf-schema#34
<gb> Issue 34 2.2 rdfs:Class (by riannella) [propose closing] [spec:editorial]
pchampin: made a pass on RDF Schema recently. the document a s a whole is self-sufficient, some individual terms could use more clarity
pfps: adding a little link "see above" (refering to that section that talks about classes) would be adequate. otherwise we would need to write a long document about iontology modelling with classes
pchampin: as an alternative to "see above" the introduction could define a few terms explicitly (using DFN tag)
I agree: the statement that `rdfs:Class a rdfs:Class` is not supposed to explain what classes are.
andys: does the confusion maybe come from rdfs:Class being defined as being an instnace of rdfs:Class? in that case a proper definition of rdfs:Class wouldn't help
and then `rdfs:Resource a rdfs:Class. rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource.` :->