Meeting minutes
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2
<pfps> minutes look fine to me
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes from last two meetings
<ora> +1
<ktk> +1
<tl> +1
<doerthe> +1
<niklasl> +1
<pfps> +1
<AndyS> +1
<Dominik_T> +0 (I was absent)
<AZ> +0.5 (was not present 3rd July)
<gtw> +1
<TallTed> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes from last two meetings
Proposal for next week's discussion
<ktk> https://
ora: should we pick a few topics to discuss and then do triage etc.?
<gb> Issue 170 treatment of structures that are not RDF graphs (by pfps) [duplicate] [needs discussion]
ktk: maybe we put the new issues on top?
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 68 Add language to require that only valid IRIs ... (by gkellogg) [needs discussion] [spec:substantive] [test:needs tests]
ora: good idea
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 126 Some improved language, punctuation, and markup in rdf-semantics (by TallTed) [needs discussion] [propose closing] [spec:editorial]
<TallTed> ack
ktk: can we start with 126, then 68 and 170?
pfps: 170 and 68 can be combined
AndyS: should we put some PR as priority to get towards PR?
ora: we take the two pfps mentioned and then see where we go, would that be ok?
AndyS: sometimes we loose focus and forget about the "small" thinks relevant for CR
ora: I think we could do then a discussion item "relevant for CR"
Review of open actions, available at 3
ora: I hope that the CR discussion will be more on the administrative side. As I hear no objections, we simply do it.
<ktk> reference: w3c/
<gb> Action 159 write a non-normative description (in "what's new") about what properties can or should link to triple terms (on rdfguy) due 2025-05-08
ora: 159 is on my, I will finish that today
pfps: 148 has a PR related to it, can we close it?
ora: what is blocking us?
pfps: some things which should be done before accorfding to the discussion, but that should not stop us
ora: then we close, information is still around
ora: where are we with the RDF Schema todo?
<ktk> context: 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
<doerthe> s/Shema/Schema
ora: there seem to be trouble with the audio, we come back to it
ora: niklasl, where are we with 150?
niklasl: we are in the middle of it, I will be traveling, but pa and I will coordinate and solve that
ora: Dominik_T, could we now discuss the RDF Schema plan?
Review of pull requests, available at 4
<pfps> I also lost audio and had to reconnect
niklasl: I think 214 is ready for merging now
<TallTed> I haven't seen latest edits. please wait a efw hours
niklasl: if editors approve of course
TallTed: please wait for me
niklasl: sure
pchampin: I want to report about 212 and 213, They are alternatives and we only need to approve one
… there were some concerns with version 213 that AndyS raised, but I think apart from that they are both fine
gkellogg: I had a note about N-triples (w3c/
<gb> CLOSED Action 68 check out PRs against GitHub wiki pages (on pfps) due 29 Jun 2023
pfps: that is related to the discussion topic for next week
ora: then we can hopefully add that to the discussion
gkellogg: I think we need to discuss this in a meeting because this is blocking
<TallTed> s/CLOSED Action 68 check out PRs against GitHub wiki pages (on pfps) due 29 Jun 2023|Add language to require that only valid IRIs .../
ora: Then we discuss it next week
ora: is semantics #137 the one you wanted to close, pfps?
<pfps> Zoom keeps on stopping audio and I have to rejoin
pchampin: I think it is the one, so we can assume that it is the one and pfps will take care of it
<pfps> As far as #137 goes, I made a change in response to a request from Ted and I'm waiting for him to see the change. I'll add him as a reviewer to make this explicit.
ora: are there more things which could be merged? what about the tests?
<niklasl> (w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 205 Add test for entailment of literal type (by niklasl)
niklasl: we still need to update the manifest for 1.1, that should be another PR
gkellogg: #209 in RDF tests needs review
<gb> Issue 209 not found
<gkellogg> w3c/rdf-tests#209
<gb> Pull Request 209 Adds directional language-tagged string tests … (by gkellogg) [Semantics]
pfps: what is the status of the test pr tests of #200
<gb> Issue 200 not found
gkellogg: there have been some comments I worked on, should be fine now
gkellogg: meta comment on tests, we have manifests from 1.2 we might want to combine with the new ones
<gkellogg> manifest.ttl and manifest-az.ttl
niklasl: that is part of pr rdf-tests#209
ora: what about 79, the protocol manifest?
gkellogg: that is also about the tool chain building the manifest, maybe we can get some feedback on that
<gtw> I'll try to take another look at it.
gkellogg: The PR is also about how to write the manifest and I'd like to get feedback
AndyS: is the vocabulary behind documented somewhere?
gkellogg: yes
AndyS: I think we should include the link then
<niklasl> https://
gkellogg: I will try to add it
<gkellogg> ht: http://
ora: gregg williams, would you have a look?
gtw: sure
<gb> Pull Request 245 Adds links to algebraic syntax symbols within the translation section (by hartig)
ora: what about sparql #245?
<gb> Issue 245 not found
gtw: olaf sugested to first focus on the "core issues"
TallTed: I am fine with waiting
niklasl: the css things, dark mode etc. - I have some suggestions I tried (to be checked further)
gkellogg: I like the direction it is going but I think we should wait with that till after CR
ora: then I am fine with waiting
AndyS: When we go to CR, will that be a document at the same place where we are editing? then there could be a problem if we still work on it
pchampin: the common practice is to "freeze" the CR version and further work on the editors version
niklasl: will the cross document references in the CR work?
tl: question for niklasl, will you be around next week, just for scibing
niklasl: no, I can't scribe