Meeting minutes
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2
ora: Comments about the minutes?
james: I have a reservation about the minutes
… there were remarks that reification can have semantics
… there were people in the past (Pat Hayes)
<tl> Pat Hayes said that it has semantics, just not normative ones
james: who said that there are semantics
ora: fair enough
… Something else, there was a comment from pfps that he disagrees with pfps
pfps: There is only one of me.
ora: who did you disagree with?
<niklasl> In the minutes it is said that "the semantics of standard reification is just the semantics ascribed to properties and types - there is nothing more". I find that clear enough.
<AndyS> https://
pfps: Not clear from the minutes who was talking about "that"
… Ah, it must be tl
… who I disagreed with
ora: can pchampin please make a correction
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes of last two meetings.
<gkellogg> +1
<AndyS> +1
<olaf> +1
<ktk> +1
<enrico> +1
<james> +1
<pfps> +1 with changes discussed
<tl> +1
<pchampin> +1
<niklasl> +1
<ora> +0.5 (I was there only for one of the meetings)
<Souri> +1
<AZ> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of last two meetings.
TPAC 2025
ora: Tomorrow is the deadline to inform W3C whether we want to have a F2F at TPAC
… which will be in Japan, the week after ISWC
… also geographically close
ktk: 1 hr by train
ora: I think there is no harm of requesting a slot
… I cannot guarantee to be there
ktk: whichever time we pick, either people from Europe or Americas are screwed
ktk: Should we take two half-day slots on different days?
ora: How long are the slots? 1.5 hrs?
ktk: longer, I think
ora: We can choose any number of slots, but they are given in 1.5 hrs increments
… I suggest we pick two slots
ktk: Do we need to give preferences for slots?
pchampin: yes
ktk: I would prefer slots closer to the end of ISWC
<enrico> I will be at ISWC and I can be at TPAC
ora: We will have people in Europe and in the US who will not come.
ktk: Then, maybe two slots, with one being better for Europe and one better for the US
ora: Are there any other preferences for the days?
gkellogg: We also need to note in the meeting requests the groups we don't want to overlap with
ora: data shapes group, and JSON-LD group, others?
gkellogg: Verifiable Credentials group
… Web of Things WG
ora: How about request two slots, and we mark all Tuesday slots as possible?
… Any objections?
… Hearing none.
Proposal for next week's discussion
ora: I will submit the form after this meeting.
ora: We have some left-over topics from last time
ktk: and clean up the needs-discussion tag
w3c/rdf-star-wg#163
<gb> Issue 163 extract the "basic-encoding" (formerly unstar) algorithm from RDF-Concepts into a Note (by pchampin) [needs discussion]
pchampin: about #163, I created a PR
<gb> Issue 163 extract the "basic-encoding" (formerly unstar) algorithm from RDF-Concepts into a Note (by pchampin) [needs discussion]
pchampin: We can close this issue.
w3c/rdf-star-wg#164
<gb> Issue 164 make progress on test suites to move to CR (by pchampin) [needs discussion]
<AndyS> +1
ktk: We can remove 'needs discussion' but should the issue remain open?
AndyS: This was more a placeholder for what we need for CR for the first batch of docs.
… tests is one of the things to do.
ktk: Should we have a discussion what else we need for CR?
gkellogg: Regarding the tests, we need to discuss what type of tests we want. What our goal is.
… with regards to covering all normative statements of the specs.
ora: These two issues seem enough for a meeting.
ktk: I will open another issues to discuss what else is needed for CR.
Review of open actions, available at 3
ktk: And we can also work on cleaning up the open issues.
ora: What happened to Appendix D?
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Action 148 delete reification subsection from appendix D of semantics spec (on franconi) due 2025-03-07
enrico: This was given to Dörthe, right?
ora: And she is not here.
enrico: I looked at it, but Dörthe should have (?)
niklasl: Domenique has things on RDF schema
<gb> Action 115 add tests for entailment of triple terms (on gkellogg, pchampin)
niklasl: We should do a coordinated action
<niklasl> w3c/
<gb> Issue 45 Acknowledge the two purposes of this document (by pchampin) [spec:enhancement]
<niklasl> .. w3c/
<gb> Issue 85 remove informative section about reification, collections, and containers from Semantics (by pfps) [spec:editorial]
ora: I assume that nothing has happened on this.
… We needed a plan of how things are going to be reorganized, and Domenique was supposed to make such a plan, but he is not here today.
AndyS: He has come up with a plan.
<pchampin> w3c/
AndyS: which is primarily about RDF Schema
pchampin: he has cut it in separate pieces, which are all documented in the issue
… I haven't looked at it.
ora: Should all these commits become separate PRs?
<niklasl> +1 for PRs of them (_maybe_ to a final proposal branch, since they perhaps interrelate...)
pchampin: Again, I haven't looked at it.
gkellogg: There seem to be changes that are there to make rebasing easier.
… But I suggest we create PR with all of these commits included.
ora: Sounds fine to me.
… Does anyone want to take this on?
gkellogg: It is Dominik's issue
<Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to comment on w3c/
gkellogg: The next step is to create a PR based on these commits.
… Which is for Dominik to do.
gkellogg: I have updated some of the test.
… enough to satisfy this action
ktk: Add it explicitly to the issue.
pchampin: About the RDF Schema thing, my reading is that Dominik is reacting to the pushback on his previous big PR
… So, let's be careful of not sending mixed messages.
… This is a complicated thing, with lots of changes.
ora: That's why I was thinking to have this as separate PRs.
pchampin: The only risk of having multiple PRs is that they create conflicts when being merged.
niklasl: Dominik wrote that, if these changes are okay, then he would make a big PR.
ktk: There is also the 'squash commits' option
niklasl: doing it piecemeal might be better because of cross-references
gkellogg: The problem was that the changes are combination of structure and content.
ora: What ever makes it easier for folks to review.
… I like niklasl's idea
… Important thing is that we have a look at it and can understand what is about to happen.
… As Dominik has done the work we asked him to do, we should also ask him what he thinks is the best next step.
… I would like to get this accomplished.
… Why don't we assign this to Dominik, and next week we can see where we are.
ktk: What is "this" here?
ora: Is this still about removing Appendix D?
pchampin: No, Dominik is working on RDF Schema.
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Action 162 make a proposal for a new plan on RDF-schema, per w3c/rdf-schema/45 (on domel) due 2025-06-12
pchampin: once that is done, the Appendix can be moved.
ktk: Okay, then the right issue is already assigned to Dominik.
ora: Our desire here is for Dominik to construct the PR.
ktk: or a branch?
gkellogg: If we want people to review it, it needs to be in a PR.
niklasl: I added a comment in the issue.
<niklasl> w3c/
<gb> Issue 45 Acknowledge the two purposes of this document (by pchampin) [spec:enhancement]
<niklasl> > Would it help to create a "final changes" branch and make PRs from these already created branches to that one? That might help out in reviewing each small PR (without merging them to main until all have been reviewed).
ora: The test for entailment are sufficient?
gkellogg: The tests that are there use the old syntax. I changed them to make them consistent with the new syntax.
<pchampin> FWIW, I'm planning to review these tests, soon-ish
gkellogg: That's a reasonable place to start, and we can always add more tests.
ora: What about the owlification?
w3c/rdf-star-wg#150
<gb> Action 150 Create note on triple term owlification (on niklasl) due 2025-03-07
niklasl: I made some progress and I am very happy to see pchampin's interop repo
… to see whether it makes sense to integrate it there.
<pchampin> the repo niklasl is mentioning is: w3c/
niklasl: Will look further into it.
w3c/rdf-concepts#170
<gb> Issue 170 Decide names and IRIs for type and constituent properties of basic-encoded triple terms (by niklasl) [needs discussion]
niklasl: But I cannot move an issue to that repo.
pchampin: Do you suggest to move that issue to rdf-interop?
niklasl: yes
pchampin: makes sense
… I propose to move the issue, unless anyone objects
… No objection!
w3c/rdf-star-wg#159
ora: I haven't done my action (159) but try to get it done before the end of the week.
w3c/rdf-star#55
pchampin: The Echidna issue on rdf-primer is fixed now.
w3c/rdf-star#168
pchampin: There is a PR on Concepts to remove the appendix about unstar, and rdf-interop contains a Note with this content
gkellogg: We have to add this to the list of documents that we have in common repo.
pchampin: Good point!
… I will do it.
ACTION: pchampin to add rdf-interop to rdf-common, and propagate that to other repos
<gb> Created action #168
Review of pull requests, available at 4
ora: Let's look at the PRs.
w3c/rdf-n-triples#58
gkellogg: The version announcement is something that we need to decide. It affects the tests.
w3c/sparql-query#221 and w3c/sparql-query#227
<gb> Pull Request 221 Consider bnode graph names in evaluation of Graph (by hartig)
<gb> Pull Request 227 Adds explicit definition of the algebraic syntax (by hartig)
olaf: I have two PRs on sparql-query that have been opened for a long time
… AndyS, do you still want to look at them?
AndyS: does not look controversial
dark mode in Respec
niklasl: There is slow progress on the dark mode related PR.
… It gives me some insights of what is possible in respec and what now.
… I have coordinated with the highlight-js repo.
… I haven't given up yet.
<ktk> s/then, maybe/then maybe/