15:54:48 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star 15:54:52 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/06/26-rdf-star-irc 15:54:52 Zakim has joined #rdf-star 15:55:15 meeting: RDF & SPARQL WG biweekly focused meeting 15:55:50 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3145be7b-99e7-49af-90b0-aee845dc7b2d/20250626T120000/ 15:55:51 clear agenda 15:55:51 agenda+ make progress on test suites to move to CR -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/164 15:55:51 agenda+ What else is still needed for moving to CR? -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/167 15:55:51 agenda+ Version announcement -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/pull/58 15:56:10 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 15:56:40 where are the current tests? 15:56:43 james has joined #rdf-star 15:57:03 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/06/20-rdf-star-minutes.html 15:57:03 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/06/27-rdf-star-minutes.html 15:57:23 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 15:57:40 present+ TallTed, ktk, pfps 15:57:54 yes, but I can't find a pointer to the tests there 15:58:04 present+ 15:58:16 ah like that. duno 15:58:30 present+ AndyS, tl, james 15:58:37 gkellogg has joined #rdf-star 15:58:38 present+ 15:59:24 present+ 15:59:49 ora has joined #rdf-star 16:00:33 niklasl has joined #rdf-star 16:00:43 present+ 16:01:12 Souri has joined #rdf-star 16:01:16 AZ has joined #rdf-star 16:01:17 present+ 16:01:22 present+ 16:01:51 olaf has joined #rdf-star 16:01:52 tl has joined #rdf-star 16:02:03 present+ 16:02:05 present+ 16:02:07 present+ 16:02:08 chair+ 16:02:09 regrets+ fsasaki 16:02:21 present+ 16:02:30 doerthe has joined #rdf-star 16:02:36 present+ 16:03:23 scribe+ 16:03:38 Zakim, open item 1 16:03:38 agendum 1 -- make progress on test suites to move to CR -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/164 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:04:26 q+ 16:04:35 ktk: we want to see what is the goal in terms of tests 16:04:36 ack gkellogg 16:05:06 gkellogg: I marked up spec with references to normative statements 16:05:15 q+ 16:05:26 regrets+ pchampin 16:05:33 ... there are tests in relation to semantics 16:05:36 ack pfps 16:05:48 ... and others that I hope others could look at 16:06:10 pfps: there are syntax issues 16:06:20 pfps: the superman example has issues 16:06:35 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests 16:06:46 gkellogg: the repo for these things is rdf-tests 16:07:10 ... where is the problem with the tests? 16:07:29 q+ 16:07:30 ora: we need to get these things fixed 16:07:45 ack niklasl 16:07:50 gkellogg: the superman test does not work, problem with parentheses 16:08:16 niklasl: that test is rather negative 16:08:41 pfps: the test is incorrect because it uses rdf++ entailment 16:08:42 s/rdf++/rdfs++/ 16:09:09 pfps: rdfs+ is referenced in the manifest 16:09:28 ... every task that has a triple term has to be checked 16:09:40 ... I'll try to go through them 16:09:52 ... would be nice if others can give a sanity check 16:10:04 niklasl: I'll try to do this 16:10:12 doerthe: I can also go over it 16:10:18 ... after next week 16:10:43 ora: what else is missing related to test? 16:11:04 ... to go to CR, we need complete test suite 16:11:23 pfps: Concepts does not need any test suite 16:11:28 ... but semantics need 16:11:46 gkellogg: we should be linking to the test suite from the tests 16:12:06 ... so we can easily find the tests related to normative requirements 16:12:16 s/requirements/statements 16:12:57 ... the URIs are relative the spec suite location 16:13:27 ... when looking at the rendered spec, it shows somewhere 16:13:34 pfps: apparently not in Firefox 16:13:48 gkellogg: maybe we did not merge the commit 16:14:13 ... I'll take a look, there must be a PR with this 16:14:32 what do look for in the source? 16:14:39 ktk: it would be good to have a nicely summarised list 16:15:26 ... let's summarise: we hve all the syntaxes (Turtle, Trig, Ntriples, Quads, RDF/XML) and semantics 16:15:34 s/hve/have/ 16:15:48 q+ 16:16:10 pfps: the source of the spec mentions the tests 16:16:22 s/Ntriples, Quads/N-Triples, N-Quads/ 16:16:28 https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-semantics/#ill-typed-tests 16:16:32 ora: but it is not rendered? 16:17:03 https://w3c.github.io/rdf-semantics/spec/ 16:17:06 gkellogg: it's possible it only appears in the editor's draft 16:17:41 https://w3c.github.io/rdf-semantics/spec/#simple_entailment_properties 16:18:30 gkellogg: when you click on the word "tests" it shows the lists 16:18:52 ... also, in the HTML version of the test manifest, it links back to this point in the spec 16:18:53 q- 16:19:04 q+ to ask about changing tests from opaque-to-transparent 16:19:21 pfps: so we need to add the things as what's in Sec.5.3 in ed draft and that should work 16:20:05 gkellogg: all syntax tests have 1.1 versions of tests, semantics does not 16:20:18 ack niklasl 16:20:18 niklasl, you wanted to ask about changing tests from opaque-to-transparent 16:20:23 ora: are there tests from 1.1 that must be deprecated? 16:20:54 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/pull/190 16:20:55 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/pull/190 -> Pull Request 190 Update RDF 1.2 semantics tests for triple terms not quoted triples. (by gkellogg) 16:20:57 niklasl: if I find time to deal with the semantics tests, should I made them transparent or what, 16:21:03 s/what,/what 16:21:11 s/what,/what? 16:21:56 gkellogg: please look at the RDF/XML tests and PR to the spec 16:22:08 Zakim, next item 16:22:08 agendum 2 -- What else is still needed for moving to CR? -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/167 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:23:23 pfps: just back up a second, if I approve Greg's PR, can we get someone to get it incorporated 16:23:34 gkellogg: yes sure 16:24:04 q? 16:24:05 ora: now, we have a list of documents, what must we do to get to CR? 16:24:07 q+ 16:24:13 q+ 16:24:14 ack ktk 16:24:20 q+ 16:24:33 q- 16:24:42 ktk: first batch and not first batch (see issue 167) is for prioritising 16:24:55 q+ to discuss Semantics 16:25:05 q+ 16:25:06 AndyS: we need to make sure it makes sense to do a batching 16:25:09 ack AndyS 16:25:29 ack pfps 16:25:29 pfps, you wanted to discuss Semantics 16:25:46 q+ 16:26:02 pfps: AFAICT, semantics is closed, I'll ensure the tests are good, there are a couple of things that must be checked 16:26:39 ora: Pat hayes sent questions and worries about the semantics of RDF 1.2 16:26:57 ... there will be a call with Pat and the semantics editors 16:27:26 ... other people could join but let us keep the group small 16:28:16 pfps: to summarise, Pat is concerned that triple terms does the same as what old reification vocabulary does, that is nothing 16:28:38 ... why not do something better like N3 16:30:09 ora: we don't necessary need to address all concerns, since Pat did not take part in last 2 years of discussions 16:30:27 ack tl 16:30:28 ... but we need to talk to him and take his words seriously 16:30:45 tl: I'd like to be part of the conversation with Pat H; 16:31:29 ... there isn't much said about the reifier in the spec 16:31:40 ... the domain of rdf:reifies is not defined 16:32:01 ... the description of its semantics is not easy to find and it's a bit vague 16:32:22 ack gkellogg 16:32:24 ... we may not be doing enough 16:32:41 gkellogg: there are 2 things about reifiers 16:32:51 ... the concept that will be described in RDF Concepts 16:33:01 ... there is little to say about it 16:33:13 ... then there is the syntax with production rules 16:33:43 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 16:33:50 ... also, there are tested that will need to be updated 16:34:15 ... and the order of the list Andy made is not necessarily the order of publications 16:34:26 ... but in what order we need to take care of things 16:34:49 q+ 16:35:03 ack AndyS 16:35:14 ora: is it possible that some people will not understand things we did with these new specs, 16:35:18 s/spec,/spec? 16:35:34 s/specs,/specs? 16:35:38 ... we have to explain the new things well 16:36:04 tl: there is a mention of concretisation, it leaves me with more questions than answers 16:36:29 https://w3c.github.io/rdf-primer/spec/#section-triple-terms 16:36:30 ... in Sec.3.5 in the Primer 16:36:58 pchampin: my position on reifiers is that they are deliberately under specified 16:37:13 ... maybe we should be more explicit about that 16:37:17 s/transparent or what/transparent or what?/ 16:37:17 s/s\/what,\/what?// 16:37:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 16:37:38 +1 to pchampin 16:38:00 ... reifiers are a design pattern rather than something with a constrained formal meaning 16:38:04 q+ 16:38:12 ack gkellogg 16:38:12 https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-triple-terms-reification 16:38:41 gkellogg: Concepts makes it quite clear about reification 16:38:44 q+ 16:38:47 ack tl 16:39:10 ... in the Primer, we need to address the lack of explanation 16:39:48 tl: there are many things that are not normative about reifies 16:40:32 q+ 16:40:40 ... there are non-normative statements about reifies in different documents and they don't help explaining it 16:40:47 q+ 16:40:51 ack gkellogg 16:41:42 gkellogg: the issue is about the semantics of reifiers and related things is because we have discussed over and over and could not get to an agreement 16:41:47 ack AndyS 16:41:59 ... this is something that should be address after recommendation time 16:42:34 q+ 16:42:43 AndyS: we should move on and not return to the endless discussiosn 16:42:51 s/discussiosn/discussions 16:42:55 ack tl 16:43:17 tl: I'll make an issue on Github and you'll see what you can do about it 16:43:28 ora: what else is missing? 16:44:06 gkellogg: first, we need to open PRs under three documents, and triage the issues specific to the doc 16:44:17 ora: can we do the triage next week? 16:44:28 ... do the PR, then do the triage 16:44:41 q+ 16:44:44 Concepts has 4 noted issues https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#issue-summary 16:44:47 ack AndyS 16:45:19 s/ and you'll see what you can do about it/ and then the group can see what to do about it 16:45:48 AndyS: looking at the list, there are issues related to the documents and we have a process to deal with what's related to the specs 16:45:51 Zakim, next item 16:45:51 agendum 3 -- Version announcement -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/pull/58 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:46:35 gkellogg: we still need to decide whether we want to update the syntaxes to allow to put a version 16:47:05 q+ 16:47:07 ... in n-triples/n-quads, it's nice to have one line-one triple 16:47:20 ... but the version stuff adds complexity 16:47:57 ack ora 16:48:02 ora: adding a version announcement as a line in n-triples, n-quads is conflicting with the principle of these formats 16:48:22 ... there are lots of implementations that just split by line and assume there are only triples 16:48:43 pchampin: it's not the case, already in RDF 1.1 that one line corresponds to one triple all the time 16:49:10 ... I appreciate what ora said, but I still prefer to have the version announcement 16:49:19 q+ 16:49:28 gkellogg: version announcement has to come before all triples 16:50:01 ... we still have to fix what happens with the allowed versions and what happens if it's not valid 16:50:08 ack ktk 16:50:51 ktk: n-triples supports comments, really? 16:50:52 easily missed because comments are treated as whitespace, not in the grammar. 16:50:55 q+ 16:51:31 q? 16:51:34 gkellogg: yes but it's easier to leave them out as you can just ignore what starts with an # 16:51:34 ack AndyS 16:51:50 AndyS: I am neutral on this topic 16:52:09 ... there is value in being able to add the metadata into the file 16:52:28 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/169 -> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [needs discussion] 16:52:40 ... n-triples allows concatenating files, which would not be possible with version announcement 16:52:43 q+ 16:52:51 ack gkellogg 16:53:01 gkellogg: we could mark it as a feature at risk 16:53:19 ... so people can know that it may be left out 16:53:19 +1 16:53:26 +1 16:53:39 ... I can update the PR with that 16:53:42 +1 16:53:45 ora: I am in favour of that 16:53:47 +1 16:53:55 +1 16:53:57 ora: any objection? 16:54:09 people: .... 16:54:45 ora: ktk should we decide who is going to talk to Pat 16:54:58 s/ora: ktk/ktk: 16:55:09 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:55:10 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/26-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 16:55:17 ora: is there an EXISTS call tomorrow? 16:55:23 AndyS: there is 16:56:22 olaf has left #rdf-star 17:01:12 s/made them transparent/make them transparent/ 17:01:13 s/Pat hayes/Pat Hayes/ 17:01:13 s/triple terms does/triple terms do/ 17:01:13 s/we don't necessary need/we don't necessarily need/ 17:01:13 s/should be address/should be addressed/ 17:01:15 s/tested/tests/ 17:01:18 s/there are tested/there are tests/ 17:01:20 s/in ed draft/in the editor's draft/ 17:01:23 s/noted issues/noted open issues/ 17:01:25 s/there isn't much said/there’s not much said/ 17:01:28 s/Concepts makes it quite clear/Concepts makes it clear/ 17:01:30 s/the allowed versions/the list of allowed versions/ 17:01:33 s/should be address/should be addressed/ 17:01:36 s/reifiers and related things is/reifiers and related things are/ 17:01:38 s/is conflicting/conflicts/ 17:01:41 s/must we do/do we need to do/ 17:01:43 s/Andy made is not necessarily the order/Andy made is not necessarily the publishing order/ 17:01:46 s/syntaxes to allow to 17:01:49 s/syntaxes to allow to put a version/syntaxes to allow including a version/ 17:01:52 s/so people can know/so that people know/ 17:01:54 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:01:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/26-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 17:02:43 present+ niklas pchampin 17:02:46 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:02:48 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/26-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 17:03:10 regrets- pchampin 17:03:18 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:03:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/26-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 17:03:52 present- niklas pchampin 17:03:58 present+ niklas, pchampin 17:04:01 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:04:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/26-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 17:04:28 RRSAgent, leave 17:04:28 I see no action items