W3C

RDF & SPARQL WG biweekly meeting

31 July 2025

Attendees

Present
AndyS, doerthe, gkellogg, james, ktk, ora, pfps, Souri, TallTed, tl
Regrets
fsasaki, niklasl, olaf, pchampin
Chair
ora
Scribe
AndyS

Meeting minutes

Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2

ora: minutes from last two meetings

<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last two weeks' minutes

<gkellogg> +1

<ora> +0.5

<ktk> +1

<TallTed> +1

<AndyS> +1

<doerthe> +1

<tl> +1

<pfps> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve last two weeks' minutes

<james> +1

Proposal for next week's discussion

<pfps> continuing audio problems with Zoom :-(

ora: email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2025Jul/0027.html

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2025Jul/0027.html

<pfps> There is the continuing discussion that might cause changes to the semantics.

ora: Bulk of the discussion next week about issues before CR.

pfps: We need to discuss issue on semantics

tl: Tried to label `ms:cr`in rdf-star-wg.

<pfps> I just tagged w3c/rdf-concepts#220 with ms:CR

<gb> Pull Request 220 Annotations on asserted triples are based on operational semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR]

tl: may not be around next week

<pfps> I also tagged w3c/rdf-semantics#144

<gb> Pull Request 144 No connection between propositions and facts in model-theoretic semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR] [spec:enhancement]

ora: idea is - tag important then discuss next week
… tagged items is only topic

AndyS: about horizontal review ...

ora: after next week, we may be able to start horizontal reviews

gkellogg: did some tagging on concepts and n-triples.
… maybe have some formal notes in the document with links to issues if not resolved in time for horizontal review
… maybe need to mark "needs discussion" even if not "ms:CR".

ora: agree - please mark them.

gkellogg: I have focused on those two documents (Concepts, N-Triples)

ora: one week for WG members to take a look.

Review of open actions, available at 3

ora: my action in progress

<ktk> w3c/rdf-star-wg#159

<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> w3c/rdf-new#18

<gb> Pull Request 18 what properties can or should link to triple terms? (by rdfguy)

Review of pull requests, available at 4

w3c/rdf-n-triples#72 - editorial

<gb> Pull Request 72 Fix `dfn-literal`. add "period" before full-stop character, other misc. (by gkellogg) [spec:editorial]

Merge w3c/rdf-concepts#213

<gb> Pull Request 213 Explicit requirements for rdf:langString and rdf:dirLangString - alternative (by pchampin)

gkellogg: I will deal with the conflict resolution.

andys: can merge rdf-tests #191

<gb> Issue 191 not found

gkellogg: about rdf-tests - #209 - pchampin comment outstanding.

<gb> Issue 209 not found

<gkellogg> w3c/rdf-tests#209

<gb> Pull Request 209 Adds directional language-tagged string tests … (by gkellogg) [Semantics]

gkellogg: need someone to look at this

pfps: I think pchampin's comment is correct

gkellogg: OK - I will fix these and merge.

Issue Triage, available at 5

Close broken link issues because fix-in-progress

AndyS: Can we publish the SPARQL NS document? w3c/sparql-query#202 ?

<gb> Issue 202 Populate the https://www.w3.org/ns/sparql# namespace document (by afs) [spec:substantive]

<TallTed> for example, DID namespace is at https://www.w3.org/ns/did#

AndyS: will work with pchampin on this

<TallTed> serializations are listed here -- https://www.w3.org/ns/did/#formal-versions-of-the-vocabulary

ora: About w3c/rdf-primer#30

<gb> Issue 30 XML? (by riannella) [Editorial]

<james> they do not look like xml.

ora: is there a way to be less confusing e.g. different brackets?

<pfps> +1 to Andy

<james> perhaps sgml.

ora: maybe prefix-name like syntax?

ktk: This style is used commonly in RDF training
… will respond

<TallTed> the example is visible here -- https://w3c.github.io/rdf-primer/spec/#example1

ora: close the "propose closing"?

ktk: will assess them and see if they can be closed

gkelloggg: w3c/rdf-concepts#79 and w3c/rdf-concepts#46 from outside

<gb> Issue 46 Why quoted triples, when we already have named graphs? (by lars-hellstrom) [wr:pending]

<gb> Issue 79 Reconsider bidirectional (bidi) tag? (by termontwouter) [wr:pending]

ktk: important point is named graphs have an orthogonal usage

tl: Decision was made with some consideration of named graphs from datagraph

pfps: WG members are free to comment as individuals

ora: Close with link to WG resolution

<ktk> s/handels/handles/

<ktk> s/jul/Jul/

Summary of resolutions

  1. Approve last two weeks' minutes
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/regrest/regrets/

Succeeded: s/ms:cr/ms:CR/

Succeeded: s/gkellog/gkellogg/

Succeeded: s/formatted docs/serializations/

Succeeded: s/named graph/named graphs/

Succeeded: s/oroa/ora

Succeeded: s/assserted/asserted/

Failed: s/handels/handles/

Succeeded: s/gkellog/gkellogg/

Failed: s/jul/Jul/

Maybe present: gkelloggg

All speakers: AndyS, gkellogg, gkelloggg, ktk, ora, pfps, tl

Active on IRC: AndyS, doerthe, fsasaki, gkellogg, james, ktk, ora, pfps, Souri, TallTed, tl