Meeting minutes
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2
ora: asking for minutes approval
<pfps> minutes look acceptable to me
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes from 2025-06-19 and 2025-06-26
<ora> +1
<pfps> +1
<pchampin> +1
<fsasaki> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<niklasl> +1
<gtw> +1
<AndyS> +1
<tl> +1
<james> +1
<olaf> +1
<ktk> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes from 2025-06-19 and 2025-06-26
Proposal for next week's discussion
ora: broad review by horizontal groups could be a topic, or should chairs handle this?
pchampin: could discuss in group. We should cover groups listed in charter
… might be good to check who can cover what group.
ora: agree
gregg: we worked with i18n by tagging issues, that shows up for them
… so we can just do the tagging with i18n as label and then follow up with an email to chairs
ora: is it up to us to ask groups what to look at?
… e.g. bidi as a topic for i18n?
gregg: yes, it is worth pointing things out
… but review groups should look into what they want to focus
<Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask if we need formal "its OK" responses from any coords or is silence enough?
pchampin: we need to cover also liaison groups, i.e. outside W3C
andy: do we need formal responses from groups or is time out of response ok?
pchampin: there is no formal time out in the process
… the team decides on the time out
… there is an informal possibility of a time out of groups are not responsive enough
… it just has to be reasonable
andy: is there is a responsibility of groups to send a reply?
pchampin: yes, we need acks even if there is no issue
ora: so we discuss this next weeks and then see who contacts what group
tl: discuss issue-169
<tl> w3c/
<gb> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [needs discussion]
tl: i.e. "reifiers should have a better definition" issue
gregg: we still have to discuss the "resolve IRIs" topic
… i.e. do all IRI go through IRI resolution algorithm
… there are tests that make some assumptions
… they need to take the discussion into account
pchampin: want to discuss a certain issue with given time
ora: 15 to 20 minutes suggested
andy: asked in the issue for feedback if WG members want to discuss
pfps: agree with andy about that approach
tl: I raised the issue last time and got some support, not fighting for labels
ora: if you want to discuss things tl let us timebox for 15 min and then discuss
pchampin: I participated in the discussion of the issue
… there is an issue if langstring without a language tag should be introduced by parsers
<gkellogg> w3c/
<gb> Issue 37 language strings missing a language tag (by pchampin) [propose closing] [test:needs tests]
gregg: needs discussion. This will also hit concrete syntaxes.
ora: objections on discussing this? will also be time boxed.
pchampin: will prepare summary of the issue
… will send a mail to the group before the call
ora: at this point, the WG will just check off things of the list
… so we could spend the rest next week in that way
andy: can we put issue-169 on the agenda?
niklas: thinking about editorial topics, e.g. rdf commons repository
ora: do we have a point in which the alternating meetings do not make sense?
… should we dedicate the meetings to checking things of the list?
pfps: semantics doc has parts that depend on definitions, unproductive to change those if first parts change
adrian: in the last weeks we get more admin stuff than real remaining work, I feel
… if that is true, how can we go through the remaining topics?
ora: this is about nailing things down
pfps: yes, and we took a step back on this
andy: semantics should be earlier on our path
pfps: others should talk on that
… doerte and enrico should talk on that
niklas: dominik is doing the schema doc, I can do primer things, that is not related to the semantics doc
… dominik needs to look into the reification topic in relation to semantics then schema doc
… we need to have work meetings editing and merging branches
ora: editors should get together on these docs
gregg: prio should be on first round of CR
… we should focus on open items, pfps mentioned items in schema and primer
gregg: we should now focus on what it takes to work on those
… and do then the work in git, focus our time in the meetings right
adrian: should we still need the larger group, try to close in the call also to close pull requests?
ora: agree
gregg: not each topic is mature enough
adrian: agree
gregg: PRs related to certain docs. Concepts has a number open, requires some focus.
ora: let us put some time on the agenda about this
… this is a good development! We wanted to get here
gregg: looking for gaps in test coverage is important
… many times we do not have a normative statement but still tests are necessary
Review of open actions, available at 3
ora: my action not done yet
niklas: work in progress on the owlification issue
ora: will then take a look
pchampin: 165 is done, 168 is pending
<tl> niklasl i'd be interested to have a look at your owl-ification work
gregg: on 168, great idea from niklas to use build process to have to avoid copying files and use referencing instead
… will do that after we got CR drafts out
niklas: trying out that pattern in my fork
Review of pull requests, available at 4
ora: anything we can merge?
gregg: n-quads and n-triples PRs are close being done
… people request changes, please review ones these are done and comment or approve PR
ora: agree
gregg: sometimes there have been requests for changes, discussion, implementations. If you are asked to look at these, please give it a prio to review and approve if possible.
ora: agree
… how about the minor changes to turtle?
gregg: there have been great suggestions from ted on these
… once we have closure on the docs we move on
… we are close on this
<pfps> sorry, on mute
andy: on rdf concepts, does pchampin need input from me?
pchampin: just more time, will give it high prio
andy: if you need anything let me know
pfps: I have a PR for tests, who should be doing these
… is there an editor for tests
gregg: if you are an editor of a doc, please make a merge of related tests
pfps: works for me
<pchampin> +1
<niklasl> +1
andy: is this about 200?
pfps: 201
… just merged
… will look at 200
… waiting for doerte to get back to me
ora: others that are not tagged, what to do about them?
w3c/rdf-tests#79
gregg: 79 is created by me
… nothing is in manifest that drove the expected behaviour
… depended on running a script that gregg wiliams managed
… not relating to work that needs to be done soon, we should consider if that is the approach we want to do
ora: would be ok to check if people want to merge
andy: agree, worth it for moving things forward
adrian: 193 and 198 seem to be ok, on concepts doc
pchampin: will take care about this by end of week
w3c/rdf-n-quads#78
ora: what about n-quads, no 78
gregg: once ted is ok, we are good to go
… then need to change n-triples, turtle, trig to check if related changes are required
… we need to have people review the doc for such related changes, we are ahead of the process for that
Issue Triage, available at 5
going through proposed closing list
ora: language strings missing topic, already discussed
… will discuss next week
gregg: we can close 161
<pchampin> +1
ora: ok, let us close
w3c/rdf-semantics#126
ora: rdfs 14 entailment topic, how about that?
andy: the document is saying different than what is intended
ora: can it be closed?
ora: not sure what proposed closing means if we do not close issues
pfps: suggesting to close this
… andy seems to agree
ora: ok, let us close that
w3c/rdf-semantics#83
ora: 83 is editorial
… does this depend on bidi topic?
pfps: no. it is teds issue
ora: we discussed that editors should do good judgment and do things
<gb> Issue 83 wording defining "RDF Literals" needs clarification (by TallTed) [propose closing] [spec:editorial]
ted: would like to see input besides me and the editors
ora: will provide some input
ted: please others look at this as well
AOB
ora: anything else?
… like us to get to a point, if something is proposed to close, whose who disagree should speak up
adrian: same for PRs, close after 2 weeks without response
ora: agree
… tomorrow US has public holiday
andy: will cancel sparql task force meeting tomorrow
… want to have editors for next discussion
<pchampin> s| … 83 is editorial|ora: 83 is editorial