W3C

RDF-star WG

17 April 2025

Attendees

Present
AndyS, AZ, eBremer, enrico, fsasaki, gkellogg, gtw, ktk, niklasl, olaf, ora, pchampin, pfps, TallTed, tl, william-vw
Regrets
doerthe, Dominik_T, Tpt
Chair
ora
Scribe
TallTed, gtw

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?

w3c/rdf-star-wg#128

<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://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/6

ora: we have one topic (w3c/rdf-star-wg#128) ... and a list

<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/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)

<niklasl> (and 12)

<pchampin> w3c/rdf-star-wg#135

<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/rdf-concepts#70 to the list for next week

<gb> Issue 70 Define RDF 1.2 Basic profile (by gkellogg) [needs discussion] [spec:enhancement]

ora: anything else?

<niklasl> w3c/rdf-concepts#170

<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/rdf-star-wg#127 last week

<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/rdf-star-wg#55 pending charter fixes

<gb> Action 55 setup echidna in all GH repository (on pchampin) due 27 Apr 2023

pchampin: w3c/rdf-star-wg#149 should be quick after chat with ???

<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/rdf-star-wg#148

<gb> Action 148 delete reification subsection from appendix D of semantics spec (on franconi) due 2025-03-07

niklasl: no substantial progress on w3c/rdf-star-wg#150

<gb> Action 150 Create note on triple term owlification (on niklasl) due 2025-03-07

ora: who wants to take on w3c/rdf-semantics#115 ?

<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/sparql-query#202

<gb> Issue 202 Populate the https://www.w3.org/ns/sparql# namespace document (by afs) [spec:substantive]

<AndyS> PR 204

AndyS: question is w3c/sparql-query#204

<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/rdf-concepts#182

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/rdf-star-wg#55 (comment)

<m2gbot> comment created: w3c/rdf-concepts#182 (comment)

<m2gbot> comment already there: w3c/rdf-concepts#182 (comment)

<niklasl> It's still in semantics? https://w3c.github.io/rdf-semantics/spec/#Reif

<gb> #45

<niklasl> see w3c/rdf-semantics#85

<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)

Summary of resolutions

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

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/agendum 3 -- Wide Review -- taken up [from agendabot]/

Succeeded: s/<TallTed> new/TallTed: new/

Succeeded: s/agendum 4 -- Proposal for next week's discussion -- taken up [from agendabot]/

Succeeded: i|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/182|subtopic: PR w3c/rdf-concepts#182

Succeeded: s|agendum 1 -- Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/04/03-rdf-star-minutes.html , -> 2 https://www.w3.org/2025/04/10-rdf-star-minutes.html --|

Maybe present: james

All speakers: AndyS, enrico, gkellogg, james, ktk, niklasl, ora, pchampin, pfps, TallTed, tl

Active on IRC: AndyS, AZ, eBremer, enrico, fsasaki, gkellogg, gtw, james, ktk, m2gbot, niklasl, olaf, ora, pchampin, pfps, TallTed, tl, Tpt, william-vw