15:59:06 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star 15:59:10 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/05/22-rdf-star-irc 15:59:11 meeting: RDF-Star WG biweekly meeting 15:59:24 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/40c79d60-8147-4da7-8185-c39434216daf/20250522T120000/ 15:59:24 clear agenda 15:59:24 agenda+ Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/05/01-rdf-star-minutes.html , -> 2 https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html 15:59:24 agenda+ Proposal for next week's discussion -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/6 15:59:25 agenda+ Review of open actions, available at -> 4 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3 15:59:27 agenda+ Review of pull requests, available at -> 5 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4 15:59:29 agenda+ Issue Triage, available at -> 6 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/5 15:59:32 agenda+ Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting 16:00:22 Regrets+ pchampin 16:00:26 james has joined #rdf-star 16:00:28 ora has joined #rdf-star 16:00:33 fsasaki has joined #rdf-star 16:00:44 present+ 16:00:44 present+ 16:00:44 present+ 16:00:49 present+ 16:00:57 scribe: ktk 16:00:58 olaf has joined #rdf-star 16:01:03 present+ 16:01:12 present+ 16:01:14 chair+ 16:01:16 present+ 16:01:17 present+ 16:01:22 william-vw has joined #rdf-star 16:01:29 Zakim, open item 1 16:01:29 agendum 1 -- Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/05/01-rdf-star-minutes.html , -> 2 https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html -- 16:01:33 ... taken up [from agendabot] 16:01:37 present+ 16:02:18 eBremer4 has joined #rdf-star 16:02:43 Souri has joined #rdf-star 16:02:44 ora: we have one new member today, welcome csarven 16:02:47 present+ 16:02:52 present+ 16:03:12 csarven: I'm Sarven. I've been working on semantic web, linked data, RDF, etc. for a while now 16:03:15 present+ 16:03:18 eBremer has joined #rdf-star 16:03:24 present+ 16:03:26 ... I tend to build stuff in order to understand what the tech is about. 16:03:45 ... I eat my own dogfood, weather it's for content or applications. 16:03:53 ... I was in the group as an AC rep some while ago. Now I'm an invited expert. 16:04:00 ... I'm an elected member of TAG 16:04:01 s/weather/whether 16:04:24 ... I joint this group to contribute what I can within the remaining time. I expect this to be mostly editorial changes. 16:04:42 ... I won't be doing any deep philosophical reconsiderations. 16:04:58 present+ 16:04:59 ... I try to bring in some fresh eyes for the work done so far. 16:05:10 ... I will communicate the work here to the TAG. 16:05:17 AZ has joined #rdf-star 16:05:22 ... I expect some explainers that the group needs to pass to TAG. 16:05:29 ... I'll try to help with that. 16:05:29 present+ 16:05:53 ... I'm a big RDFa dork, I know the group is not taking it up now. But always happy to talk about it. 16:06:08 ora: welcome, and we certainly appreciate the closer lieson with the TAg. 16:06:15 s/TAg/TAG/ 16:06:29 ora: I'm personally happy to talk about RDFa at a later stage. 16:06:43 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:06:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/22-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 16:06:48 RRSAgent, make log public 16:07:07 ora: any concerns or corrections for the minutes? 16:07:30 PROPOSAL: Approve last two meetings' minutes. 16:07:35 +1 16:07:37 +1 16:07:42 +1 16:07:42 +1 16:07:42 +1 16:07:43 +1 16:07:43 +1 16:07:44 +1 16:07:47 +1 16:07:47 #1 16:07:48 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/1 -> CLOSED Issue 1 No activity (nor even README) since WG approval in August (by TallTed) 16:07:49 +1 16:08:04 +1 16:08:06 +1 16:08:07 +1 16:08:12 +1 16:08:14 pfps has joined #rdf-star 16:08:24 present+ 16:08:28 +1 16:08:43 RESOLVED: Approve last two meetings' minutes. 16:08:51 Zakim, next item 16:08:51 agendum 2 -- Proposal for next week's discussion -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/6 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:09:05 doerthe has joined #rdf-star 16:09:13 present+ 16:09:18 Last meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html 16:10:18 q+ 16:10:37 q+ 16:11:01 ack gkellogg 16:11:27 gkellogg: what's not on here, in RDF/XML we have upcoming support for triple terms and annotations. But probably not anything special for reifying triples. 16:11:49 ack tl 16:11:51 ... I don't know if this is something we want to think about, to have a high-level syntactic representation of it like we do in Turtle and Trig. 16:12:19 tl: I will be traveling next week, I can't participate if the group wants to discuss https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130 16:12:19 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130 -> Issue 130 vocabulary to refer to the individual nodes in a reified triple term (by rat10) [needs discussion] 16:13:21 q+ 16:13:30 ack AndyS 16:13:52 AndyS: We could discuss https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/pull/58 16:13:53 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/pull/58 -> Pull Request 58 Version announcement. (by gkellogg) [needs discussion] [spec:enhancement] 16:14:01 q+ 16:14:41 ack gkellogg 16:16:35 gkellogg: We have not decided what the system should do if the version does not match the content. 16:16:49 AndyS: let's do a separate issue for that so we don't have to do it in the PR 16:16:52 q+ 16:17:22 ack AndyS 16:17:28 q+ 16:17:35 ack Andys 16:17:52 q+ 16:17:55 AndyS: Is https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/issues/45 blocking anything? 16:17:56 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/issues/45 -> Issue 45 Acknowledge the two purposes of this document (by pchampin) [needs discussion] [spec:editorial] 16:18:04 ... I don't know exactly what it is about. 16:18:25 pfps: It does not look like it's blocking anything. It's just if we want to change the names. 16:18:49 ora: pchampin wants to rename some, we can have this discussion. 16:18:59 ack pfps 16:19:07 AndyS: it's been "Schema" for so long... 16:19:12 pfps: my point exactly 16:19:22 s/my/the/ 16:20:44 pfps: what about https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/89, did we discuss that? 16:20:45 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/89 -> Issue 89 Different parsing of the same absolute IRI with or without base IRI (by Tpt) [ErratumRaised] [needs discussion] 16:20:50 ora: I need to understand it more 16:21:13 pfps: order looks fine now 16:21:27 Zakim, next item 16:21:27 agendum 3 -- Review of open actions, available at -> 4 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:22:45 ora: enrico what is the status on https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/148 16:22:45 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/148 -> Action 148 delete reification subsection from appendix D of semantics spec (on franconi) due 2025-03-07 16:23:14 pfps: my recollection is it was only added because Pat wanted to say "there is no semantics" 16:23:45 doerthe: after pfps pointed that out, I agreed with him. Before I was not sure if we have this information somehwere. Now I know it's in RDF Schema. 16:24:23 pfps: we might want to put a note in Semantics, I'll add a note in the issue 16:24:56 q+ 16:24:56 enrico: in any case we should not have the part that explains old reification. That would be weird. 16:25:09 ack pfps 16:25:14 q+ 16:25:27 pfps: I don't think that's the right way to go. Container vocab is even more obsolete than reification. 16:25:41 enrico: Yes but for reification we have an alternative now. For containers we don't. 16:25:57 q+ 16:26:14 ack doerthe 16:26:14 ora: there are applications that use containers. 16:26:20 pfps: so are for reification. 16:26:23 ora: yes 16:26:46 doerthe: do you want to remove the vocabulary as well then enrico? If it's not removed, we should explain it somewhere. 16:27:05 enrico: I agree and it should go into the notes that explain the connection between the new and the old reification. 16:27:15 doerthe: and you would not put it into RDF Schema then? 16:27:24 AndyS: I would be happy in having everything in RDF Schema 16:27:26 +1 to small paragraph note in semantics which reference that note and/or rdf-schema (terms are still in `rdf:`). And very much yes, the terms are used. Likely won't go away. 16:27:38 ack AndyS 16:27:43 ... I don't think we can remove reification from there. We could say there is RDF 1.2 work about it and link to it. 16:27:54 ... It's very difficult to get rid of vocabularies. 16:28:29 ora: my take is we can never get rid of vocabs, they are closed. Who knows what is out there. 16:28:56 enrico: At least we have to edit the section & say please use the new style. 16:29:17 ora: who is currently editing RDF Schema document? 16:29:41 doerthe: it's Dominik Tomaszuk 16:30:15 ora: so we put a small note into the semantics document & say that this has moved. 16:30:44 doerthe: I will Dominik that the note will move to the Schema document. 16:30:54 s/I will/I will tell/ 16:31:27 niklasl: I'm waiting for something that we discuss next week 16:32:37 Zakim, next item 16:32:37 agendum 4 -- Review of pull requests, available at -> 5 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:33:18 q+ 16:33:24 q+ 16:33:32 ack pfps 16:34:33 pfps: fix up definitions for non-ground graphs #128 I accepted all, should be good 16:34:34 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 -> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [enhancement] 16:34:59 ack gkellogg 16:34:59 pfps: on https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/126 I'm against most changes 16:35:00 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/126 -> Pull Request 126 Some improved language, punctuation, and markup in rdf-semantics (by TallTed) [spec:editorial] 16:35:27 gkellogg: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/pull/88 is waiting for some changes in ReSpec for dark mode. any update niklasl? 16:35:28 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/pull/88 -> Pull Request 88 Setup dark mode based on work in rdf-primer and elsewhere. (by gkellogg) [spec:editorial] 16:35:35 niklasl: no activity so far, I'll check what I can do 16:36:05 ora: if you as editor against it, it should not happen. 16:36:12 pfps: the working group did not decide what should happen. 16:36:36 ... do we want to discuss if we use em-dashes in the group? 16:36:38 ora: that's a no from me 16:36:46 ... editors discression 16:37:15 ora: are the other dark mode issues all about the same? 16:37:16 pfps: yes 16:37:37 AndyS: we said we check it on one document and then apply on the other documents if good. 16:38:20 ... I hope we get a stable base in the tooling before I adjust everything in SPARQL. There is custom code there. 16:38:47 ora: N-Triples version announcement is waiting for next weeks discussion? 16:38:50 niklasl: yes 16:39:11 ora: what about https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/pull/221 16:39:12 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/pull/221 -> Pull Request 221 Consider bnode graph names in evaluation of Graph (by hartig) 16:39:22 gkellogg: still in discussion 16:39:40 olaf: it's in progress, I respond to AndyS comment 16:39:48 AndyS: no dispute, just ongoing discussions. 16:40:06 ... we just have a few things to sort out. 16:40:13 ora: excellent. 16:40:41 ora: what about the ones in RDF Concepts? 16:41:03 q+ 16:41:33 csarven: you have strong opinions on https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/182? 16:41:34 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/182 -> Pull Request 182 Declare advisement level keywords for non-normative content in Conformance (by csarven) [spec:editorial] [spec:wontfix] 16:42:20 csarven: I know you discussed it. I'm aware that this is an editorial change. It's fine that the group doesn't touch anything related to RDF Concepts document or any other document. 16:42:54 e.g. https://github.com/speced/bikeshed/blob/a6f7e1a35973ce6502de459f3c33339086db0f90/bikeshed/lint/accidental2119.py#L11 16:43:33 ... What I highlight is that some groups & tooling like Bikeshed is going into a direction recommending that you use a requirement level term in a non-normative section. It's part of the default check to raise awareness on the editors. 16:44:05 ... Even in TAG we have documents that are moving aways from any of these keywords in non-normative sections. It's more becoming a practice. 16:44:24 ... The strong position I had was that the justification was not very good why it can't be done. 16:44:55 q+ 16:44:58 timbl has joined #rdf-star 16:45:06 ack csarven 16:45:06 ... The discussion could very well be we don't have time. But from a technical level there is no reason not to do it. Especially because of the new, good practice. 16:45:30 ... The proposal was just for this specific document. Not for all documents. 16:45:57 ... I'm happy to stand back and let the group do what they see fit. I cannot say weather TAG will say something about it, but I raise it as one thing that could be mentioned. 16:46:18 ... If you want to improve the language in the spec, that's a direction to go. 16:47:21 ack AndyS 16:47:22 ... It's a language thing and it helps understanding if a section is normative or not. 16:47:39 AndyS: I am fully supportive of the idea when it's applied for new documents. 16:48:05 ... But my concerns are: If you put it into one document, one should update all documents in the same fashion. 16:48:11 timbl has joined #rdf-star 16:48:24 ... Second, we don't know the intend of the original document. 16:49:09 ora: was there something blocking from Olaf? 16:49:11 q+ 16:49:14 csarven: I think I took care of that. 16:49:37 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/182/commits/b72df99bd358daab1e9beaf2bcbf2ad8b1a807fa 16:49:37 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/182 -> Pull Request 182 Declare advisement level keywords for non-normative content in Conformance (by csarven) [spec:editorial] [spec:wontfix] 16:49:53 olaf: I had a look at it again after the discussions 16:50:39 ... I agree with AndyS concerns, I don't think it's a good idea 16:50:44 ack gkellogg 16:51:21 gkellogg: if we were supposed to do it, I would expect some support for it in ReSpec. 16:51:44 ... I have not seen any errors from ReSpec so far. 16:52:19 q+ re ReSpec and recommending advisement language in tooling and or process 16:52:21 ... I'm not against having standardized terminology for non-normative things. But if that is the direction the W3C goes, I expect to see discussions for the process. 16:52:25 ack csarven 16:52:25 csarven, you wanted to discuss ReSpec and recommending advisement language in tooling and or process 16:52:47 csarven: I'm not an expert in ReSpec & Bikeshed. I was recently using Bikeshed and it alerted us. 16:53:05 ... I don't see a check in ReSpec, I think it does not implement that kind of warning. 16:53:47 ... I can move on from this PR and I can report back. 16:54:50 ora: I would appreciate that. 16:55:01 ... also AndyS viewpoint on this 16:55:03 q+ 16:55:10 ack csarven 16:55:47 csarven: If ReSpec would do this, would this be sufficient to follow up on it? I don't think the process says it. 16:57:14 ora: my feeling is at this point we should be doing what really needs to be done. 16:57:39 AndyS: I'm surprised it's retrofitted to a group that is running for a while. 16:58:00 scribe- 17:01:19 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:01:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/22-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 17:02:07 olaf has left #rdf-star 17:04:00 s/joint this group/joined this group/ 17:04:00 s/closer lieson/closer liaison/ 17:04:00 s/#1/+1/ 17:04:00 s/somehwere/somewhere/ 17:04:00 s/editors discression/editor's discretion/ 17:04:03 s/next weeks discussion/next week's discussion/ 17:04:05 s/aways/away/ 17:04:08 s/weather TAG/whether TAG/ 17:04:10 s/intend/intention/ 17:04:13 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:04:15 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/22-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 17:05:02 present+ enrico 17:05:04 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:05:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/22-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 17:12:13 RRSAgent, end meeting 17:12:13 I'm logging. I don't understand 'end meeting', ktk. Try /msg RRSAgent help 17:12:19 RRSAgent, leave 17:12:19 I see no action items previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/05/29-rdf-star-minutes.html