Meeting minutes
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2
ora: any issues with minutes? speak now
<pfps> minutes look acceptable
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes from last two meetings
<ora> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<ktk> +1
<eBremer> +1
<gtw> +1
<AndyS> +1
<tl> +1
<james> +1
<pfps> +1
<Souri> +1
ora: any other votes?
<enrico> +1
<Tpt> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes from last two meetings
No meeting next week
ora: moving on....next week, knowledge graph conf in NY
ora: suggest cancelling meeting for next week
ora: thoughts?
<Souri> s/too will at/too will be at/
adrian: meeting cancelled for next week
Proposal for next week's discussion 3
ktk: anyone oppose to remove the needs discussion for all four?
andys: we could remove needs discussion from 187
gkellog: there are some issues..I dont know that we need to tag them on this particular issue
… but in terms of what is the expected behavior of implementations faced with these explicit versions...
<gb> #187
ktk: but then we could say remove it here and follow up
gkellog: I think its probably better to do that, move things forward and sort of stepping up a little biut higher and then we can deal with that later
ora: that sounds good
<AndyS> My action from last week is w3c/
<gb> Issue 202 Version labels for RDF profiles. (by afs) [spec:enhancement]
ktk: I seein the minutes and please oppose if you disagree that the map the annotation syntax (issue #128) conclusion is close this issue and create a new one
andys: overtaken by the issue an idea of concepts about what labels we have
ktk: and it could be closed. its a correct interpretation 135
gkellog: ..confusion still about if the basic profile is officially called the basic profile
ktk: we leave them on top and we would do a reosolution as a first task in two weeks
<TallTed> s/ nnotation/ annotation/
ktk: leave 135 and 70 open the first two
… i see next one wasd also discussed what properties can or should link to triple terms
ora: cant remember exactly what we did decide..
gkellog: my understanding now is that there are no normative requirements on properties linking to triple terms
… it all comes out of the semantics..
ora: we can do an action. we can close this.
<gb> Cannot create action. Validation failed. Maybe <person> is not a valid user for w3c/rdf-star-wg?
ACTION: ora to write a non-normative description (in "what's new") about what properties can or should link to triple terms
<gb> Created action #159
ora: what else do we want to discuss next time?
gkellogg: turtle 89 which is absolute IRI without a base IRI
… theres been some confusion going back to at least RDF 1.1.
… what it means to use a full form of an IRI...
… we use to call it an absolute IRI
… i think we need to discuss this issue sooner rather than later since it affects tests that have been open for some time...
andys: i think we can remove the need discussion label on sparql update 42
… it might turn into a needs discussion...
ktk: ok, but not right now. good. done.
ora: rdf concepts 170
… and rdf* wg group 130. are those really the same issue?
… should we discuss together?
… i think they should be discussed together
ktk: so 170 and 130
andys: the probably do go together but they are not the same
<TallTed> w3c/
<gb> Issue 170 Decide names and namespace for constituent properties of classic triple terms (by niklasl) [needs discussion]
<TallTed> w3c/
<gb> Issue 130 vocabulary to refer to the individual nodes in a triple term (by rat10) [needs discussion]
tl: your talking about vocabulary to refer to individual notes in a triple term
ora: thats the 130
ktk: we have roughly four topics
ora: hopefully first two dispatch quickly
ktk: if we really still have time can go back to the list
Review of open actions, available at 4
ora: moving on
enrico8: no update on my action
… sorry
Review of pull requests, available at 5
ora: pull requests....
… anybody want to discuss these editorial
gkellogg: the first one that shows up...i think we decided to close
ktk: i was confused to why this is still open
gkellogg: i think theres been pushback...might require chair response
ora: ....the one where we dont want to use uppercase on those specific things if its a non-normative section?
pfps: theres a slew of these...have concept changes...
… it would be nice to have changes marked correctly...
… im going through and changing them some of myself and putting questions ...
gkellogg: 191 uses both editorial and enhancement. so its really should be one or the other
pfps: im looking at 195 which essentially changes..
andys: 194 and 198 have unresolved discussion so they are not ready to merge
gkellogg: this related to whether a prefix is an IRI
andys: yeah
gkellogg: better for Pierre to take charge of these things..
<ktk> 1?
ora: what about 187?
andys: proceed as a normal PR.
ktk: 173....no feed back
ora: what about #42?
<gb> MERGED Pull Request 42 Systems and Acronyms originally in the wiki. (by gkellogg)
ora: 47? seems like a usability related...
andys: ...something has to be done for them. I dont think it works...
<pfps> have to go now
ora: i feel like we should merge these and if someone complains....open an issue for that
ktk: who would merge them?
andys: i dont think merging actually helps us much in this case...
<TallTed> for contrast checking: https://
ktk: i see one more issue. the one in sparql federated query
… ted requested some changes...
tallted: have not reviewed this specifically.... i will have to look and see.
Issue Triage, available at 6
gkellogg: proposed for closing tab with eith issues in it
ktk: okay thats great lets do that
<TallTed> proposed for closing
ktk: any objects on the rdfs class one?
ktk: 34 is closed
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 78 Update document for RDF 1.2 publication (by afs) [propose closing] [spec:editorial]
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 83 Escape sequences that encode a supplemental code point using a Unicode surrogate pair (by peteroupc) [propose closing]
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 85 Supporting embedding of named objects not just blank nodes. (by canwaf) [propose closing] [spec:wontfix]
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 54 Are prefixes carried from one section to another? Can they repeat? (by VladimirAlexiev) [propose closing]
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 87 forbid redefining the same PREFIX; consider forbidding relative BASE (by VladimirAlexiev) [propose closing] [spec:substantive]
andys: this is part of an issue bomb...they would affect implementations...
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 37 Duplicated or similar terms (by gkellogg) [propose closing]
ktk: we have this one 37
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 152 Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies (by niklasl) [propose closing]
gkellogg: this is an old one...
ktk: 152....
gkellogg: maybe the action is to remove the label
andys: there is sparql task force meeting tomorrow....
… same as semantics slot