Meeting minutes
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2
pchampin: I'm chairing, so long as my voice holds out
pchampin: Approval of minutes
they look fine to me
<pchampin> PROPOSAL: approve minutes from the last two meetings?
<fsasaki> +1
<eBremer> +1
<niklasl> +1
<AndyS> +1
<james> +1
<pfps> +1
<tl> +1
<AZ> +1
tallted: the 22nd doesn't have links to the previous and next meeting
pchampin: I'll do that
RESOLUTION: approve minutes from the last two meetings (modulo the change suggested by TallTed)
Proposal for next week's discussion
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: pasting link to potential topics
pchampin: what remains from the needs discussion issues?
andys: items 1 through 3 were discussed last time
<niklasl> I agree as far as I recall.
<pchampin> w3c/rdf-star-wg#161
<gb> Issue 161 Expected behavior of systems when profile does not match used features (by gkellogg) [needs discussion]
<pchampin> w3c/rdf-n-triples#58
<gb> Pull Request 58 Version announcement. (by gkellogg) [needs discussion] [spec:enhancement]
<pchampin> w3c/rdf-concepts#205
<gb> Issue 205 Discussion - what advice to put in RDF specs about the handling of version labels. (by afs) [needs discussion]
pchampin: can we remove needs discussion from those three?
pchampin: we don't need a formal resolution and there are no objections so let's do it
pfps: there was also a long dicussion of the fourth item
<pchampin> w3c/rdf-schema#45
<gb> Issue 45 Acknowledge the two purposes of this document (by pchampin) [needs discussion] [spec:editorial]
pchampin: removing needs discussion from that one as well
<AndyS> https://
niklasl: dominic was going to make some changes to implement what is needed for that one
pchampin: we can add an action on dominic, to keep track of things
ACTION: domel to make a proposal for a new plan on RDF-schema, per w3c/rdf-schema/45
ACTION: domel to make a proposal for a new plan on RDF-schema, per w3c/rdf-schema/45
<gb> Created action #162
<niklasl> We also didn't discuss the first item on last week's agenda; i.e. "Unstar algorithm and upcoming the RDF Concept CR": https://
andys: I took an action item to come up with examples related to . and .. for the on IRI handling
pchampin: I'm remove needs discussion from that one as well
pchampin: this leaves a short list
pchampin: was any decision made on the "basic encoding"
andys: my recollection was that there was going to be a note
niklasl: we deferred that because pchampin wasn't present
pchampin: we should quickly come up with something for this one
pchampin: creating an issue for extracting the unstar algorithm into a note
pchampin: let's discuss the "basic encoding" note as the first thing
niklasl: the last one is closely related
pchampin: it might not be urgent but it is related to the note
andys: we need to talk about getting documents out
andys: one of things to talk about is tests
<tl> w3c/
<gb> Issue 130 vocabulary to refer to the individual nodes in a reified triple term (by rat10) [needs discussion]
pchampin: we'll talk about this at the next chairs meeting
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about 170
pfps: issue 130 is something that we need to solve before making progress in Semantics
pchampin: i concur so let's put it up for discussion
pchampin: something on tests makes sense for next week
pchampin: there doesn't seem to be a good issue to use for this purpose
pchampin: I'll create an issue - now third on the list
Review of open actions, available at 3
pchampin: anyone want to claim victory?
pchampin: the echidna action is unpaused but still might need work
niklasl: the owlification note depends on the basic encoding note
Review of pull requests, available at 4
pchampin: progress on concepts? andy?
andys: there might be some outstanding comments on the open ones
w3c/rdf-concepts#182
andys: the keywords PR was going to be closed
pfps: we owe the submitter a comment before closing
pchampin: there was dicussion but it is not linked
pchampin: the discussion was along the lines that this should be done systematically through the all the documents
csarven: it's fine to leave this as is
pchampin: that's good - could you close the issue then?
pchampin: can we close this without prejudice?
pfps: any change should only be done on direction from above
pfps: the wording is formulaic and in many document
tallted: it would be good to add a subtopic on 182
pchampin: PRs on concrete syntaxes
i have to leave at the official end time
Issue Triage, available at 5
pchampin: any issues that can be closed?
pchampin: issues with tag ms:CR should be looked at
pchampin: please look at these issues as they should be addressed before CR
pchampin: they could be tagged as needs discussion
tallted: we will have to make progress on these
tallted: it is too bad that we can sort this in some nice way
pchampin: at one time I went through these
andys: there are several that are labeled as future work that don't have to show up
bye now
pchampin: AndyS please save that change to the dashboard
Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
AndyS: no SPARQL TF meeting tomorrow
… there will be one next week
<niklasl> http://
niklasl: AndyS and I will be presenting the future of RDF in Lotico next week
james: anybody who might want to attend need to request an access code. You can't get it at the last minute.
pchampin: adjourned