15:56:34 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star 15:56:38 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/07/24-rdf-star-irc 15:56:40 gkellogg has joined #rdf-star 15:56:49 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3145be7b-99e7-49af-90b0-aee845dc7b2d/20250724T120000/ 15:56:52 clear agenda 15:56:52 agenda+ Some improved language, punctuation, and markup in rdf-semantics -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/126 15:56:52 agenda+ treatment of structures that are not RDF graphs -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/170 15:56:53 agenda+ What else is still needed for moving to CR? -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/167 15:56:53 agenda+ Issue Triage, available at -> 4 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/5 15:57:04 meeting: RDF-star WG biweekly focused meeting 15:57:08 pfps has joined #rdf-star 15:57:18 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:57:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/24-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 15:57:21 RRSAgent, make log public 15:57:47 present+ 15:57:56 present+ 15:58:17 Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star 15:58:48 tl has joined #rdf-star 15:58:57 present+ 15:59:44 present+ 15:59:51 Chair: ktk 15:59:58 scribe+ 16:00:09 present+ 16:00:13 present+ 16:00:14 present+ 16:00:22 present+ 16:00:24 olaf has joined #rdf-star 16:00:37 Enrico has joined #rdf-star 16:00:46 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/07/18-rdf-star-minutes.html 16:00:46 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/07/25-rdf-star-minutes.html 16:00:46 present+ 16:00:49 present+ 16:01:02 james has joined #rdf-star 16:01:24 present+ 16:01:47 rrsagent, please create the minutes 16:01:48 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/24-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T 16:02:30 present+ 16:02:45 zakim, open next agendum 16:02:45 agendum 1 -- Some improved language, punctuation, and markup in rdf-semantics -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/126 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:03:00 ktk: let's start. Ora might not be able to make it 16:03:10 q+ 16:03:15 ... Ted's PR 16:03:17 ack pfps 16:03:42 q+ 16:03:50 ack TallTed 16:04:08 pfps: mostly emdashes. emdashes neither necessary nor useful. as an editor i'm strongly against them 16:04:39 doerthe has joined #rdf-star 16:04:40 TallTed: feel strongly that they should be added.not having them looks like something is forgotten 16:04:54 present+ 16:06:00 ... some could be replaced by colons in some last places, but that requires a little rephrasing 16:06:02 q+ 16:06:21 ack pchampin 16:06:27 q+ 16:06:30 pchampin: don't feel strongly either way, but am not a native speaker 16:06:59 ... understand ted's point about consistent sentences 16:07:26 ... just now looking at an example where i don't agree with Ted 16:07:40 q? 16:07:43 ack gkellogg 16:08:15 gkellog: in general in support of emdashes 16:08:38 ... but code blocks in specs are by convention not enclosed in emdashes 16:08:47 s/gkellog:/gkellogg:/ 16:08:49 q+ 16:08:55 ack AndyS 16:09:36 AndyS: general advice seems to be that emdashes should be used sparingly 16:09:38 q+ 16:09:43 ack TallTed 16:10:27 Souri has joined #rdf-star 16:10:35 present+ 16:10:44 TallTed: will rephrase my proposal since nobody except pfps and me seem to feel strongly about this 16:10:48 zakim, open next agendum 16:10:48 agendum 2 -- treatment of structures that are not RDF graphs -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/170 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:10:49 rrsagent, please draft the minutes 16:10:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/24-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T 16:11:02 ktk: will have a look at it after ted's update 16:11:23 is there a pointer to 68? 16:11:39 ktk: now issue 68 16:11:47 q+ 16:12:02 gkellogg: n-triples got merged since we last discussed it 16:12:11 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/pull/68 16:12:12 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/pull/68 -> MERGED Pull Request 68 Add language to require that only valid IRIs ... (by gkellogg) [needs discussion] [spec:substantive] [test:needs tests] 16:12:23 ack pfps 16:12:28 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/pull/68 16:13:19 pfps: apparently there are apps (eg syntax processors) that do not output RDF graphs. that seems weird 16:13:32 q+ 16:13:50 ack pchampin 16:13:52 ... seems like having an XML processor that doesn't output XML 16:14:42 pchampin: concur with Peter's concern, but there are exception eg invalid input being allowed to be output again 16:15:10 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/170#issuecomment-3053739738 seems to indicate that output of non-RDF is mandated 16:15:11 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/170 -> Issue 170 treatment of structures that are not RDF graphs (by pfps) [duplicate] [needs discussion] 16:15:16 ... although often some signals of error etc is required 16:15:32 q+ 16:15:56 ack AndyS 16:16:13 andys: there is not test that outputs nonconformant RDF graphs 16:17:19 pfps: so there are no approved test that mandate outputting non-RDF graphs? 16:17:28 andys: yes, not that i know of 16:17:39 pfs: thaht would make me very happy 16:18:02 s/pfs:/pfps: 16:18:11 s/thaht/that 16:18:56 q+ 16:19:04 q+ 16:19:06 gkellogg: positive syntax tests should arguably always be positive evaluation tests 16:19:35 ack pchampin 16:19:36 ... we should ship negative syntax test for illegal forms 16:19:55 pchampin: do we have evaluation tests for n-triples? 16:20:20 gkellogg: closest would be canonicalization tests 16:22:08 pchampin: if we add negative tests for corner cases, maybe we should distinguish "good" from "bad" tests 16:23:03 gkellogg: most formats have pretty precise EBNF grammers, but eg JSON-LD hasn't 16:23:10 ack AndyS 16:23:12 ...[xxx] unnecessary 16:23:32 s/[xxx]/gkellogg 16:23:59 AndyS: we can't have negative evaluation test since we can't precisely say what the outcome should be 16:24:15 s/gkellogg unnecessary/I think a finer distinction of negative tests is unnecessary 16:25:17 q+ 16:25:25 gkellogg: we could test if they spot soem wrong syntax 16:25:39 AndyS: but then: error, warning, something else? 16:26:18 q- 16:26:57 q+ 16:27:35 ... risk of pushing too much of what people do as being not an RDF graph 16:27:58 pchampin: should be clear of what "negative syntax check" should be 16:28:11 ... not necessarily need to reject 16:28:45 ack pchampin 16:29:21 ... signaling a problem without normatively saying anything, not requiring rejection, but still report an error if one is detected, leave details to implementors (whatever makes most sense in their application) 16:30:01 ... "negative syntax test" very plainly can not mean requirement for rejection 16:30:45 rrsagent, please draft the minutes 16:30:46 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/24-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T 16:31:29 gkellogg: sometimes people run "valid" tests 16:31:37 q+ 16:31:53 ack pchampin 16:32:02 ... even more important when generating RDF if you want to make sure you generate valid RDF 16:32:53 pchampin: example a n-triples parser accepts n-quads and throws away the graph name 16:33:08 ... could taht be compliant (with a signal/warning) 16:33:19 s/taht/that 16:33:42 q? 16:34:12 ktk: conclusion: do we have to extend the test, or not? 16:34:29 gkellogg: will generate a PR for negative syntax tests 16:34:35 +1 to create tests for these corner cases 16:34:51 ktk: pfps, is your issue resolved? 16:35:17 zakim, open next issue 16:35:18 I don't understand 'open next issue', pchampin 16:35:20 rrsagent, please draft the minutes 16:35:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/24-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T 16:35:27 pfps: yes, and i will close the issue 16:35:27 zakim, open next item 16:35:27 agendum 3 -- What else is still needed for moving to CR? -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/167 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:36:02 ANdyS. will put in a PR wrt n-triples about a behaviour i'm not happy with 16:36:05 q+ 16:36:25 q+ 16:36:40 q- 16:37:03 AndyS: concepts issues 129 clarification abstarct syntax and datamodel, issue#??? , issue # 116 rdf json 16:37:08 q+ 16:37:14 q+ 16:38:23 gkellogg: #89 in turtle - resolving IRIs needs to be figured out, also in n-triples 16:38:25 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/89 -> CLOSED Action 89 follow up to the persons concerned [4] (on pfps) due 2023-09-19 16:39:14 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/129 16:39:15 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/129 -> Issue 129 Distinguish the RDF Data Model from the Abstract Syntax (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [spec:substantive] 16:39:19 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/92 16:39:20 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/92 -> Issue 92 identity and equality of datatype values (by pfps) [spec:editorial] 16:39:26 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/116 16:39:27 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/116 -> Issue 116 rdf:JSON value space incorrect (by pfps) [ms:CR] [spec:bug] 16:39:29 ack gkellogg 16:39:32 ack pchampin 16:39:45 ktk: andy, please tag the issues taht you mentioned as "needs discussion" 16:40:25 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/89 16:40:26 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/89 -> Issue 89 Different parsing of the same absolute IRI with or without base IRI (by Tpt) [ErratumRaised] [needs discussion] 16:40:45 s/taht/that/ 16:41:30 pchampin: we need some things sorted out before we go to CR, but can we ask for horizontal review from other WGs already? the remaining issues don't seem to have the potential to completely change the course of the specs. 16:41:30 q? 16:41:34 q+ 16:41:38 ack gkellogg 16:42:15 ... question to the group: do you think there is teh danger of such issues that could completley change the direction? would it bad practice to ask for horizontal review now? 16:42:29 gkellogg: ??? 16:43:20 s/gkellogg: ???/gkellogg: if we add markers for the issues that we think do need discussion before we get into CR 16:43:29 ktk: do we have such issues? 16:43:29 q+ 16:43:32 q+ 16:43:40 Souri: all are the TR/rdf12-* for concepts, n-triples, semantics. 16:44:05 s/Souri: /Souri --/ 16:44:10 pfps:semantics work has been delayed largely because of discussion of hwat annotation of statements means 16:44:26 ... underlying semantics might have to be cahnged 16:44:41 ack pfps 16:44:59 ... until that's clarified it doesn't make sense to finalize semantics 16:45:25 pchampin: so peter things big changes in semantics are still possible, right? 16:45:49 ... horiziontal review involves TAG, scurity, privacy, internationalization 16:46:01 pfps: only TAG would be affected 16:46:12 ... also small changes can be very time consuming 16:46:12 s/affected/possibly affected/ 16:46:42 ack pchampin 16:46:57 pchampin: suggest to give ourselves a deadline to identify blocking issues, and addreess them in a coming meeting 16:47:13 ktk: call, or issue, to establish that list? 16:47:26 q+ 16:47:59 rrsagent, please draft the minutes 16:48:00 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/24-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T 16:48:06 pchampin: CR labels in github issues 16:48:26 ktk: and then discuss those labels in a WG meeting 16:48:53 ... maybe send out a mail to teh list to ask for those labels 16:49:03 q? 16:49:12 pchampin: and then discuss them in 2 weeks? 16:49:30 andys: what are the risk points wrt semantics? 16:50:54 q? 16:50:57 ack AndyS 16:50:58 ack me 16:51:01 pfps: two PRs about teh connection of statements and annotations (one in concepst, one in semantics) 16:52:00 q? 16:52:14 ktk: will send out an email on this list of issues blocking going to CR 16:52:41 Zakim, next item 16:52:41 agendum 4 -- Issue Triage, available at -> 4 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/5 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:52:41 s/ teh / the 16:52:47 rrsagent, please draft the minutes 16:52:49 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/24-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T 16:52:56 s/taht/that 16:53:03 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/11 16:53:49 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/61 16:53:50 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/61 -> Issue 61 CSS changes reduce readability of documents (by pfps) [documentation] [propose closing] 16:54:25 fine by me 16:54:29 ktk: propose to close this if i don't hear anything 16:54:34 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/103 16:54:34 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/103 -> Issue 103 what is the relation between reifiers and annotation blocks? (by lisp) [propose closing] 16:54:51 ktk: proposed closing three weks ago, no comments 16:54:58 close it 16:55:31 ktk; closed 16:55:35 rrsagent, please draft the minutes 16:55:43 s/ktk;/ktk: 16:55:55 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:55:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/24-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 16:56:27 regrets+ niklasl 16:58:33 s/emdashes/emdashes,/ 16:58:33 s/should be added.not/should be added. Not/ 16:58:33 s/exception eg/exception, e.g./ 16:58:33 s/soem/some/ 16:58:33 s/there is not test/there is no test/ 16:58:35 s/no approved test/no approved tests/ 16:58:38 s/grammers/grammars/ 16:58:40 s/test if they spot soem wrong syntax/test if they spot some wrong syntax/ 16:58:43 s/a n-triples parser/an n-triples parser/ 16:58:45 s/ANdyS./AndyS:/ 16:58:48 s/abstarct/abstract/ 16:58:51 s/teh/the/ 16:58:53 s/completley/completely/ 16:58:56 s/hwat/what/ 16:58:58 s/cahnged/changed/ 16:59:01 s/things big/think big/ 16:59:04 s/scurity/security/ 16:59:06 s/addreess/address/ 16:59:09 s/theconnection/the connection/ 16:59:11 s/concepst/concepts/ 16:59:14 s/weks/weeks/ 16:59:17 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:59:18 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/24-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 17:00:50 olaf has left #rdf-star 17:00:54 RRSAgent, end meeting 17:00:54 I'm logging. I don't understand 'end meeting', ktk. Try /msg RRSAgent help 17:00:58 Zakim, leave 17:00:58 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been ktk, gkellogg, AndyS, tl, gtw, pfps, Dominik_T, pchampin, Enrico, TallTed, james, olaf, doerthe, Souri 17:00:58 Zakim has left #rdf-star 17:01:01 RRSAgent, leave 17:01:01 I see no action items regrets+ ora