Meeting minutes
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2
<Tpt> regrets for today
<pfps> Minutes look acceptable to me.
ora: I sent regrets for April 3, so no comment on those minutes
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes for the last two meetings.
<AZ> +1
<olaf> +1
<ktk> +1
<tl> +1
<fsasaki> +1
<gtw> +1
<ora> +0.5 (only present in one of the two)
<TallTed> +1
<niklasl> +1
<james> +1
<pchampin> +1
<AndyS> +1
<pfps> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes for the last two meetings.
Council Report on Charter 3
pchampin: The Council over-rode the objection, so we're free to proceed, but also noted a bug in this charter which was inherited from the previous charter, which they recommended we fix before publishing the new charter.
… Expect publication next week.
… Echidna auto-publication is temporarily disabled, pending flip to new charter.
AndyS: noticed a group rename suggestion in the Council report. Is that happening?
pchampin: RDF-star WG was named based on then-forecast work. Shape has changed since then. Council said we can rename, but it's not mandatory from their perspective.
<gkellogg> +1 to rename the group.
pchampin: The easy way is to not rename, but given everything else happening, this might be best time for it.
<niklasl> +1 for renaming if it's "easy" enough
james: Misunderstandings stemming from current name were raised as a concern, lending weight to renaming.
<william-vw> +1 for renaming
<AndyS> Preference for renaming, subject to practicality (would it be easier later?)
pchampin: will be meeting with Philippe tomorrow, could include this in that conversation
<tl> +1 to re-naming
pchampin: understanding is that this is basically a label change which can be done with existing URLs, which can be updated later
TallTed: new short-name seems the biggest challenge
<ora> STRAWPOLL: Rename the WG to "RDF and SPARQL WG"?
<AndyS> pchampin's suggestion of "relabel/shallow" and sort out the rest over time
<james> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<william-vw> +1
<fsasaki> +0
<tl> +1
<pfps> +0
<pchampin> +1
<enrico> +1
<gtw> +0
<ora> 0
<niklasl> +1
<TallTed> +1
<AndyS> +1
<ktk> +1
<AZ> +1
<olaf> +0.5
ora: I see no objections, so chairs will discuss at their next meeting
Wide Review
pchampin: rdf-concepts will be moved to CR ASAP. Call for Wide Review must be issued first.
… These go to the usual suspects, plus those listed in charter
ora: is there a time limit for this?
pchampin: we have to give them a reasonable window
ora: we'll prepare email for when WG decides Concepts is ready
pchampin: We can start Wide Review before we've addressed all editorial issues, as long as substantive changes don't come in
james: Do we (pchampin) consider issue 128 to be editorial?
<gb> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing]
pchampin: yes, that's potentially significant, and needs resolution before concepts goes to wide review
<AndyS> We ought to get the "version" section (PR on concepts : 187) which should be soon anyway.
tl: we could perhaps discuss this next week?
<pchampin> note that figures are non-normative, so any change in the figure would be editorial (not to minimize their importance, though)
tl: Outside comments might be helpful
pfps: It seems better to dispose of issues rather than deferring them. WG should make a decision and move forward.
james: people will react differently to a CR than otherwise, but this should be flagged somehow in the document as an issue under discussion
ora: we should discuss this next week
Proposal for next week's discussion
<ktk> https://
ora: we have one topic (w3c/
<gb> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing]
<niklasl> I agree; same for item 11?
AndyS: can we remove w3c/
<gb> Issue 141 Which parties carry what costs of text/turtle changes, and do those outweigh which benefits for whom? (by RubenVerborgh)
<niklasl> (and 12)
<pchampin> w3c/
<gb> Issue 135 naming RDF 1.2 without triple terms (by pfps) [needs discussion]
pchampin: we made a resolution long ago, but never applied it to the documents. "classic" vs "basic" or some such, for "RDF 1.2 except triple terms"
… this also blocks wide review, because it's in the conformance section
niklasl: quick discussion next week should settle this
ora: so we're adding w3c/
<gb> Issue 70 Define RDF 1.2 Basic profile (by gkellogg) [needs discussion] [spec:enhancement]
ora: anything else?
<niklasl> w3c/
<gb> Issue 170 Decide names and namespace for constituent properties of classic triple terms (by niklasl)
niklasl: Not sure whether rdf-concepts issue 170 needs broad discussion, or bikeshedding elsewhere
tl: Semantics TF talked about w3c/
<gb> Issue 127 what properties can or should link to triple terms? (by afs) [needs discussion]
tl: maybe that should come to the whole WG?
ora: that makes sense, plus 170, as raised by niklasl
ora: that should be enough to fill next meeting
Review of open actions, available at 4
pchampin: w3c/
<gb> Action 55 setup echidna in all GH repository (on pchampin) due 27 Apr 2023
pchampin: w3c/
<gb> Action 149 Add reference to appendix d on reification of 1.1 semantics spec in section 8 of concepts spec (on pchampin) due 2025-03-07
ora: and that's related to enrico's action, w3c/
<gb> Action 148 delete reification subsection from appendix D of semantics spec (on franconi) due 2025-03-07
niklasl: no substantial progress on w3c/
<gb> Action 150 Create note on triple term owlification (on niklasl) due 2025-03-07
ora: who wants to take on w3c/
<gb> Action 115 add tests for entailment of triple terms (on )
gkellogg: there are two aspects to this. One is creating inputs and expected outputs. Second is making them run in a test manifest form.
… Maybe a wiki to suggest the inputs/outputs?
ora: sounds good. any volunteers to help gkellogg with that?
pchampin: happy to help. can't take lead on this one.
niklasl: will also help as needed
Review of pull requests, available at 5
AndyS: Not in that list yet, is draft PR working on SPARQL namespace document
<AndyS> w3c/
<gb> Issue 202 Populate the https://www.w3.org/ns/sparql# namespace document (by afs) [spec:substantive]
<AndyS> PR 204
AndyS: question is w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 204 SPARQL Namespace Document (by afs)
AndyS: goal is to name the query forms
… put in all functions, because SHACL is likely to want their URIs
<ktk> w3c/
PR w3c/rdf-concepts#182
<gb> Pull Request 182 Declare advisement level keywords for non-normative content in Conformance (by csarven) [spec:editorial]
ktk: 182 should be closed? because we(?) decided not to include that wording?
AndyS: conceptually, this idea is fine, but in practice, doing exactly what's there would be a huge effort across all the documents, especially where wording was inherited from long-previous WGs
<niklasl> +1 to AndyS
TallTed: do we have a tag for future-work?
… wont-fix seems like closing a door.
pfps: I think we should NOT make this change because of potential to miss some instances, leading to some middle ground problem
niklasl: seems to be about accessibility concerns
<pfps> I also think that we should close this with no action because it is really asking for a change in how BCP 14 is signalled in W3C documents.
ora: maybe we leave this to be after REC, if someone feels strongly at that point
enrico: Semantics TF has little to do at this point, so that meeting timeslot is available for some other TF -- EXISTS, ad-hoc, or otherwise
<pchampin> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
<m2gbot> comment created: w3c/
<m2gbot> comment created: w3c/
<m2gbot> comment already there: w3c/
<niklasl> It's still in semantics? https://
<gb> #45
<niklasl> see w3c/
<gb> Issue 85 remove informative section about reification, collections, and containers from Semantics (by pfps) [spec:editorial]
<gb> Issue 47 Move text from RDF semantics to RDF schema (by pchampin)