Meeting minutes
<gtw> I'll be joining the call today via phone only from a 310 number.
Identifying issues to solve before CR 1
<AndyS> https://
ora: we have issues to solve before CR...
… preferences for order of attack?
[ suggestions made ... which provide basis for which others? ]
w3c/rdf-concepts#129
<AndyS> First paragraph "an abstract syntax (a data model) "
<AndyS> "1.1 Graph-based Data Model"
niklasl: prefer `abstract syntax`, because `data model` can mean more different things
<AndyS> and of course the title: "Concepts and Abstract Syntax"
gkellogg: it may be difficult to completely remove `data model`, but perhaps we could define `data model` in terms of `abstract syntax`
ora: I find inclusion of `syntax` leads to confusion in some people's minds
<tl> what about "abstract model"?
niklasl: `model` is frequently enough used to mean `interpretation`, leading to more confusion
pchampin: I have always understood `abstract syntax` and `data model` to be synonyms, and changing that at this stage seems problematic
gkellogg: agree these are synonyms, and removing one from the documents at this stage may not be possible
james: they're not synonyms, based on history and elements of their definitions
<AndyS> data model (14) abstract syntax (24 but 6 is title)
james: one reader's opinion
<niklasl> some of the "data model" come from the issue note though ;)
ora: not overly concerned about this, but might be good to have a paragraph we can point people to, going forward
<AndyS> I'm happy with the "abstract syntax (a data model)" in the intro and section 1
gkellogg: people coming to RDF from Property Graphs will wonder what the `RDF data model` *is*, so we shouldn't remove it entirely
<tl> "The abstract syntax is the RDF data model..."
ora: suggests glossary that defines "data model" with "see `abstract syntax`"
james: people wanting to use RDF to `represent their domain` are thinking about `data model`
AndyS: multiple audiences mean we need to cover some things (like this) early, such as in the introduction
… we're running into the problem that there aren't enough words
<Souri> Would it be correct to say that "Abstract syntax for RDF enables the RDF data model." ?
ora: proposes we say something to the effect that we think of `abstract syntax` and `data model` as more-or-less interchangeable, and the term `abstract syntax` is largely used today due to its historical use
<AndyS> https://
ACTION: niklasl to take a stab at the paragraph differentiating c at this stage
<gb> Created action #172
drat. "`c`" should have been "`abstract syntax` and `data model`"
w3c/rdf-concepts#143
<gb> Issue 143 "3.7 Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs" very misleading (by franconi) [ms:CR] [spec:bug]
AndyS: doesn't like this section, not really sure what it's trying to do (now)
ora: franconi and pfps are not here... thoughts from doerthe?
<AndyS> https://
doerthe: there is discussion of skolemization elsewhere, so we should keep this, somewhere (perhaps appendix?)
<AndyS> "6. Skolemization" - RDF Semantics - https://
doerthe: have seen this in practice, but relatively rarely
ora: I've seen it in production
ktk: has seen it more in connection with SHACL
tl: doesn't canonicalization depend on skolemization?
gkellogg: dataset canonicalization does not use skolemization. skolemization is dependent on its endpoint, among other things.
doerthe: could try to make the text more acceptable to franconi
ACTION: doerthe to try to revise the text now in appendix b
<gb> Created action #173
w3c/rdf-concepts#163
<gb> Issue 163 Move datatypes definitions in RDF-Schema? (by pchampin) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
pchampin: to summarize, proposal was to move datatype definitions from RDF Concepts to RDF Schema, because not required for basic definitions of RDF
… also partially to help clear the path to CR
<james> scanning through the current version of "concepts and abstract syntax", of the 14, three are trivially non-distinguishing, five are in the comment about the issue, one is accurately referring to a "model" and the others should more accurately be "abstract syntax".
gkellogg: needs to be resolved before CR if we're making big changes to RDF Concepts, which this would count as
… it might be too large a refactoring to handle at this stage, with too little benefit
ora: ambivalent. any other thoughts?
niklasl: no good arguments. might be *nice* to move from Concepts to Schema, but not *necessary*
ora: seems more a matter of taste than of technicality. no passionate opinions?
<gb> CLOSED Action 129 write a PR on rdf-concepts for the unstar mapping (on pchampin) due 2024-10-01
tl: agreed
<Zakim> tl, you wanted to say #129
james: volunteers to draft PR replacing `data model` with `abstract syntax` (and vice versa?) to see what happens
<niklasl> Sounds good, so we can see how it reads.
ACTION: james to draft PR replacing `data model` with `abstract syntax` (and vice versa?) to see what happens
<gb> Cannot create action. Validation failed. Maybe james is not a valid user for w3c/rdf-star-wg?
ACTION: lisp to draft PR replacing `data model` with `abstract syntax` (and vice versa?) to see what happens
<gb> Created action #174
ora: returning to question of moving datatype definitions ... let's not?
pchampin: let's close that with no action
[ no objection ]
w3c/rdf-concepts#169
<gb> Issue 169 Relative IRI Reference should bind to the irelative-ref production (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
gkellogg: what do we do with IRIs that are parsed and match the production for a resolved IRI, but aren't the same after running through resolution algorithm?
… such as, an IRI that includes leading dot segments. is that the same as the IRI that results from removing such dot segments?
… thinks not the same
TallTed: they're not the same IRI, for most meanings of "same", but whether this matters is another question
pchampin: according to RFC, dot segments are not allowed in absolute IRIs, so these are pathological anyway
gkellogg: suggests pointing to segments of RFC 3686 & 3687 and saying that behavior with such noncompliant IRIs is undefined
ora: let's pick that up when AndyS is with us
<Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to suggest line 8
pchampin: suggests w3c/
<gb> Issue 183 Normative statement in Security Considerations (by csarven) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
w3c/rdf-concepts#183
TallTed: I was going to say the same; there are easy subtitutions
ACTION: pchampin to take a stab at w3c/
<gb> Created action #175
TallTed: e.g. 'ought' instead of 'should', 'can' instead of 'may'
w3c/rdf-concepts#228
<gb> Issue 228 RDF Concepts section ordering (by afs) [ms:CR]
gkellogg: small work to be done to finish this
w3c/rdf-concepts#92
<gb> Issue 92 identity and equality of datatype values (by pfps) [ms:CR] [needs discussion] [spec:editorial]
pchampin: we should wait for pfps, but I would consider that this issue can be closed, we had a PR addressing it
… I'll ping pfps on github to check with him
two issues about IRIs
ora: is w3c/
<gb> Issue 73 IRI resolution requirements (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [needs discussion] [spec:substantive]
<gb> Issue 169 Relative IRI Reference should bind to the irelative-ref production (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
ora: very productive call. just need to see those action points resolved.
… continue in this mode in 2 weeks?
<doerthe> isn't this #144?
<gb> Issue 144 [Editorial] capitalization of "SPARQL string", "SPARQL Query string", and "SPARQL Update string" (by TallTed) [documentation]
gkellogg: question of reifies vs asserts has been open for a year ... we need to resolve it somehow
<doerthe> item 12
tl: these are w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 144 No connection between propositions and facts in model-theoretic semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR] [spec:enhancement]
<gb> Pull Request 220 Annotations on assserted triples are based on operational semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR]
tl: those are prerequisites for me to finish drafting something
[ adjourned ]