15:57:16 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star 15:57:20 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-rdf-star-irc 15:57:20 Zakim has joined #rdf-star 15:57:42 meeting: RDF & SPARQL WG 15:58:14 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/40c79d60-8147-4da7-8185-c39434216daf/20250814T120000/ 15:58:14 clear agenda 15:58:14 agenda+ Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/07/31-rdf-star-minutes.html , -> 2 https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-minutes.html 15:58:14 agenda+ Proposal for next week's discussion 15:58:15 agenda+ Review of open actions, available at -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3 15:58:16 agenda+ Review of pull requests, available at -> 4 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4 15:58:19 agenda+ Issue Triage, available at -> 5 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/5 15:58:22 agenda+ Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting 15:58:26 TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF & SPARQL WG -- 2025-08-14 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/40c79d60-8147-4da7-8185-c39434216daf/20250814T120000/ 15:58:56 niklasl has joined #rdf-star 15:59:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 15:59:14 lisp has joined #rdf-star 15:59:16 present+ 15:59:23 present+ 15:59:33 present+ 15:59:43 present+ 15:59:46 ora has joined #rdf-star 15:59:51 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-minutes.html 15:59:51 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/08/15-rdf-star-minutes.html 16:00:06 scribe+ 16:00:13 present+ 16:00:23 chair+ 16:00:25 fsasaki has joined #rdf-star 16:00:34 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 16:00:47 olaf has joined #rdf-star 16:00:48 present+ 16:01:00 present+ 16:01:14 pfps has joined #rdf-star 16:01:28 present+ 16:01:39 present+ 16:01:57 present+ 16:02:53 Zakim, open item 1 16:02:53 agendum 1 -- Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/07/31-rdf-star-minutes.html , -> 2 https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-minutes.html -- 16:02:56 ... taken up [from agendabot] 16:03:03 present+ 16:03:23 ora: anybody have concerns about minutes? 16:03:24 Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star 16:03:32 present+ 16:03:56 AndyS: the first one's next meeting link goes to 404. otherwise good. 16:04:12 I will fix the 404 link 16:04:42 TallTed: there was no SPARQL call that week. 16:05:13 pchampin: Will fix issues. 16:05:19 PROPOSAL: Approve minutes of last two meetings 16:05:22 +1 16:05:24 +1 16:05:28 +1 16:05:28 +1 16:05:28 +1 16:05:30 +1 16:05:31 +1 (for the one where I was present) 16:05:33 +1 16:05:34 +1 16:05:40 +1 (for second where I was present) 16:06:05 RESOLVED: Approve minutes of last two meetings 16:06:26 Zakim, next item 16:06:26 agendum 2 -- Proposal for next week's discussion -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:06:44 Souri has joined #rdf-star 16:06:48 present+ 16:07:14 ora: before we get into specifics, pchampin and I had discussion about switching from alternating schedule to meetings where we do CR-related review. 16:07:31 ... this is our highest priority at the moment. 16:07:45 +1 16:07:50 +1 16:08:15 ora: maybe pchampin can edit the schedule accordingly. 16:08:40 +1 16:08:47 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 16:08:53 q+ 16:08:54 ... willdo what we did last week in every meeting. 16:08:55 ack pchampin 16:09:19 pchampin: to clarify, we have admin meetings. the other ones are called focus meetings. propose switching back to focus meetings for everything. 16:09:31 ... will approve minutes every week, and then focus on CR-related items. 16:09:54 ... will simply remove the focus meetings from schedule. calendar will still have two alternating meetings, but with same name. 16:10:11 ... could swtich back in future. 16:10:42 ora: anything else we want to talk about the topic selection? now no reason for this topic selection the way we've been doing it. 16:11:03 ... I think that means we're good. Future meeting agendas will reflect this. 16:11:50 Zakim, next item 16:11:50 agendum 3 -- Review of open actions, available at -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:12:27 pchampin: first one on the list is basically done. can close the action. 16:12:35 ... what remains to be done can be tracked on PRs. 16:12:49 q+ 16:13:14 ... the second line can also be closed. issue 183. 16:13:28 w3c/rdf-concepts#231 16:13:29 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/231 -> Pull Request 231 remove normative language from Security Considerations (by pchampin) [ms:CR] 16:13:39 ... PR in (w3c/rdf-concepts#231) 16:13:43 q+ to ask whether the PRs for #168 should be merged 16:13:43 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/168 -> Action 168 add rdf-interop to rdf-common, and propagate that to other repos (on pchampin) due 2025-06-26 16:14:15 ... was going to propose closing two issues, but have to think about it. having them always open makes them basically invisible. 16:14:20 q+ 16:14:23 ... the one that is paused I propose to close it. 16:14:47 ack pfps 16:14:47 pfps, you wanted to ask whether the PRs for #168 should be merged 16:14:48 ... the one on short names has some work to do. I will do this. 16:15:04 pfps: does that mean we should merge the PRs for the first thing on dashboard? 16:15:09 pchampin: for me, they are good to merge. 16:15:18 ... basically updating the lists of related documents. 16:15:41 ... updating some bibliography. primary links to published version. also fixes issue talking about rdf-star WG. 16:15:45 q+ 16:15:48 ... suggest editors merge the changes. 16:16:08 ... suggest merging on top of these, as CI actions will break otherwise. 16:16:26 ... doesn't prevent merging 16:16:28 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-common/issues/14 -> Issue 14 Enable Github pages on this repository to load by URL rather than local copies (by niklasl) 16:16:43 pfps: that should fix error messages on my two PRs for semantics? 16:16:46 pchampin: I can check. 16:16:57 ack TallTed 16:17:06 TallTed: I'm hesitant about closing issues before PRs are merged. 16:17:13 ... standard practice is to merge and then close issue. 16:17:37 ... I don't think the amnesia about seeing same issue/PR listed all the time should be a reason to close the issues. 16:17:41 q+ 16:17:48 ... there being an open issue indicates that it hasn't been handled yet. 16:17:51 s/willdo/will do/ 16:18:01 ... as we get towards CR, reviewing no remaining open issues is part of the flow. 16:18:08 ... they should remain until all PRs for the issue are merged. 16:18:12 ack gkellogg 16:18:27 gkellogg: updating these common files is painful. we'll have to do it more. 16:18:48 ... niklasl came up with mechanism to avoid doing it. step in CI that copies things in. 16:19:04 ... I suggested we hold off on that until after CR, but that's only the case for concepts, semantics, and n-triples. 16:19:14 ... it's time to try to improve that workflow for remaining repos. 16:19:18 q+ 16:19:20 ack pchampin 16:19:41 pchampin: responding to TallTed, I see your point. I see values in both ways, so no strong opinion. 16:20:05 ... about the one that was paused, there is currently no issue. I proposed keeping it open because it might re-appear. 16:20:24 ... lots to do when we re-create a repo. this issue doesn't serve a purpose, so I was proposing to close it. 16:20:56 ora: when you say your checklist, I hope that ends up on the wiki somewhere. 16:21:07 pchampin: that's my checklist as staff contact for things only I can do. 16:21:13 ack niklasl 16:21:14 ora: might be valuable to have it visible somewhere. 16:21:22 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-common/issues/14 16:21:23 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-common/issues/14 -> Issue 14 Enable Github pages on this repository to load by URL rather than local copies (by niklasl) 16:21:38 niklasl: regarding gkellogg's proposal, I agree that it might be useful to enable that for other specs. holding off on the 3 going to CR now. 16:21:47 it's fine to close the issue re repo creation. and I agree that the checklist should be preserved somewhere for any future staff contact, for, e.g., RDF & SPARQL 1.3 or 2.0 16:22:25 Also, +1 to close that paused one. 16:22:32 ora: my understanding is that we'll deal with PRs first before closing the action items. 16:22:36 Zakim, next item 16:22:36 agendum 4 -- Review of pull requests, available at -> 4 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:22:58 ora: I think there was one more action item. 16:23:02 ... line item 5. 16:23:16 ... I think we tried to discuss this, but Dominik_T was not in the meeting. 16:23:23 ... anything to say about this? 16:23:26 Zakim, go back to item 3 16:23:26 I don't understand 'go back to item 3', TallTed 16:24:11 Dominik_T: asking about rdf-schema? 16:24:12 ora: yes. 16:24:31 Dominik_T: I created PR and waited for some responses. Then apply some changes. For the last two days, the PR is accepted. 16:24:42 ... you can see the reorganization in the spec. 16:24:57 ora: there is an open...? 16:25:06 Dominik_T: yes. you can look at the spec. 16:25:19 ora: we'll get to that when we look at PRs. 16:26:07 q+ 16:26:12 ack pfps 16:26:28 pfps: I think we have come to rdf:JSON that is acceptable to everbody. 16:26:31 ora: great! 16:26:51 pfps: definition section says "unordered maps" with note about implementation. 16:27:07 ora: we can merge this. 16:27:12 pfps: yes. thanks to pchampin for the wording. 16:27:17 that being https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/229 16:27:18 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/229 -> Pull Request 229 change definition of rdf:JSON (by pchampin) 16:27:37 pfps: I'll fix that so it closes the issue as well. 16:28:15 q+ 16:28:19 ora: where are we with abstract data model/syntax issue? 16:28:29 ack lisp 16:28:30 q+ 16:28:32 lisp: I was and I did. 16:28:40 ... my change was a consequence of listening to comments last week. 16:28:48 ... suggested to me that the wording was too ambiguous. 16:29:02 ... my first attempt was to pick a term and use it. see reaction. 16:29:08 ... that was not appreciated. several concerns. 16:29:14 ... pulled back that PR and made another one. 16:29:15 latest is https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/232 16:29:16 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/232 -> Pull Request 232 revise to use "abstract data model" to unify "abstract syntax" and "data model" (by lisp) 16:29:26 ... changes the usages which are about an abstract data model to "abstract data model". 16:29:35 ... documented doesn't really have an abstract syntax in it. 16:29:41 i/I think we have come to rdf:JSON/subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/229 16:29:42 ... doesn't have concrete data model. 16:29:53 ... now a PR with substitutions with "abstract data model" but no reactions so far. 16:30:06 q+ 16:30:11 ora: urge everyone to take a look at this. 16:30:18 ... want to hear comments 16:30:19 ack niklasl 16:30:26 niklasl: I've looked at that. In middle of review. 16:30:35 ... I will post review. 16:30:42 ... I think it's good to see it spelled out. 16:31:05 q+ 16:31:08 ... The PR as it stands keeps abstract syntax in one place which is good. Has been there for ~20 years. 16:31:09 ack pfps 16:31:23 pfps: This changes the title of document. That's not a problem for W3C process(?) 16:31:25 q+ 16:31:30 pchampin: I don't think it is. 16:31:40 ora: docs identified by URL, not title, I suppose. 16:31:44 pfps: I'm fine with title change. 16:32:04 ack ora 16:32:06 ora: Considering we do this, should I put a paragraph in the RDF New document informing people about our thinking on this? 16:32:11 i|where are we with abstract data|subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/232 16:32:12 +1 to put something in RDF New 16:32:16 +1 16:32:30 ora: let's record an action for me to do that. 16:32:41 +1 to mention this change in rdf-new if we abandon (or tone down) "abstract syntax" 16:32:45 ack lisp 16:32:50 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:32:52 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin 16:33:01 lisp: I devoted no thought to the consequences of this with respect to other documents. 16:33:07 ... attempt to be consistent with the term. 16:33:08 q+ 16:33:16 ... to be consistent, the title had to change. 16:33:42 ... with respect to explanations, considering adding paragraph which could go in this document. 16:33:52 ora: might still be a good idea to put something in RDF New. 16:33:57 +1 I have that action in mind. 16:33:59 ack pfps 16:34:09 ACTION: ora to put a note in RDF-new that "abstract syntax" is now "abstract data model" 16:34:16 we probably will need a consistency check across the other documents 16:34:16 Created -> action #176 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/176 16:34:29 pfps: Every place we refer to this docuemnt, we say "RDF Concepts". 16:34:37 ... bibliography has the full title. 16:34:42 ... they will change semi-automatically? 16:34:47 pchampin: they should. 16:35:02 pchampin: once a new draft is published. 16:35:40 ora: we don't touch bibliographies. 16:35:51 pfps: nothing has to be changed for title change. 16:35:55 RDF Semantics contains one occurrence of "RDF abstract syntax" that is not generated and would need to be updated 16:36:16 ora: urge everyone to take a look at what James has done. 16:36:32 lisp: in terms of terminology, it's not a casual change. 16:36:42 q+ 16:36:49 ack pchampin 16:37:04 pchampin: I found one mention of "RDF Abstract Syntax" not generated by resepc. 16:37:14 q+ 16:37:14 ... in a number of places, we talk about "concrete syntaxes". 16:37:24 ... is it a problem? I don't think it is, but might want to consider. 16:37:27 ack niklasl 16:37:42 niklasl: I noticed that, too. Perhaps we might want to keep the abstract syntax in more than once place. 16:37:53 ... that will be part of the Note. Not part of this PR. 16:38:22 ora: homework for next week. 16:38:35 ... if everyone is happy, James can merge. 16:38:48 maybe replace "concrete syntaxes" with "concrete serializations"? 16:38:49 ... I think it's OK to talk about concrete syntax. Emphasizes we're talking about textual representations. 16:39:00 I'm going to change the "abstract syntax" mention in Semantics, as it really means just parts of an RDF graph. 16:39:09 TallTed: maybe replace "concrete syntaxes" with "concrete serializations"? 16:39:40 gkellogg: it feels backwards to me. serializations formed by serializing something out. syntax is the way you write things that can then be parsed into data model. 16:39:53 TallTed: take abstract data model and serialize it into a concrete serialization. 16:40:12 gkellogg: that's correct. but many ways to serialize a graph that would not be the automatic result of running an automatic serializer. 16:40:13 q+ 16:40:28 +1 to gkellogg, I think syntax is relevant here. 16:40:28 ack ora 16:40:59 ora: understand, but sounds nit-picking to me. to clarify, gkellogg are you saying if I write turlte in emacs, I'm not serializing anythign? 16:41:05 gkellogg: depends on definition of "serialization". 16:41:44 ora: suggest everybody think about this. we can bring this up next week. 16:42:04 ora: other PRs? 16:42:11 q+ 16:42:12 gkellogg: n-quads and turtle. 16:42:19 ack pchampin 16:42:29 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/231 16:42:29 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/231 -> Pull Request 231 remove normative language from Security Considerations (by pchampin) [ms:CR] 16:42:42 pchampin: PR 231 is ready. Related to actions we talked about earlier. 16:42:58 ... been approved by editors. I think it's ready to ship. 16:43:07 ora: happy to have you merge it. 16:43:07 I've got ~39 rdf-shapes notifications, plus all the sub-repos, needing review 16:43:21 TallTed: need to ask for more time. 16:43:33 ora: just ping pchampin when you're ready. 16:43:39 TallTed: will put approve on whatever I've gone over. 16:43:54 pchampin: I'd ask editors to merge this after TallTed's approvel as I'll be away until next Friday. 16:44:12 gkellogg: I see TallTed's approval in the review. 16:44:34 TallTed: I don't know which PRs are being discussed. If I approved, then merge it. If things have changed since the approval, please don't. 16:45:21 ora: n-quads sync with n-triples? 16:45:28 q? 16:45:38 q+ 16:45:39 gkellogg: document we're focused on is n-triples, but echos through all turtle-like specs. I've been applying changes. 16:45:51 ... will also need similar changes to rdf-tests 16:45:57 ack AndyS 16:46:02 q+ to mention sparql entailment 16:46:06 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/223 16:46:07 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/223 -> Issue 223 RDF Reference IRI (by afs) [ms:CR] 16:46:14 AndyS: I'd like to get this issue sorted out (rdf references). 16:46:20 +1 16:46:39 ... it tries to outline what makes a good reference despite what you can write in IRIs. 16:46:42 s/n-quads sync with n-triples?/subtopic: w3c/rdf-n-quads#80 16:47:05 ... can't be completely enforced, but gives a sense of what would make a good one (stable, agrees with what reference is). 16:47:16 ack pfps 16:47:16 pfps, you wanted to mention sparql entailment 16:47:22 pfps: couple of changes on SPARQL entailment which are editorial. 16:47:26 ... somebody found a bug in document. 16:47:40 ... referred to wrong rule. 16:47:45 ... will merge unless somebody complains. 16:48:13 AndyS: I've gone through SPARQL documents. May merge some of the changes despite long-running actions. 16:49:22 ora: maybe a few minutes in issue triage. 16:49:32 Zakim, next item 16:49:32 agendum 5 -- Issue Triage, available at -> 5 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/5 -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:50:04 TallTed: pfps, I don't know which entailment PRs you were talking about. 16:50:07 pfps: they are merged in already. 16:50:12 ... for sparql entailment. 16:50:24 TallTed: it doesn't appear in the dashboard. 16:50:29 pfps: because no more PRs on it. 16:50:40 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-entailment/pull/41 -> MERGED Pull Request 41 fix wrong entailment rule in RDF entailment example (by pfps) [spec:editorial] 16:51:21 looks like 40, 41 (link above), & 44 16:51:30 gkellogg: IRI resolution requirements in n-triples. Something we've got to figure out sooner rather than later. 16:51:40 ... n-triples#73 16:51:40 Issue 73 not found 16:51:42 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/issues/73 16:51:43 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/issues/73 -> Issue 73 IRI resolution requirements (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [needs discussion] [spec:substantive] 16:52:00 ... issue about when do you resolve an IRI that looks like it's already in resolved form. 16:52:31 ... two ways to do it: always resolve every IRI against document base which means you can't talk about IRIs with dot segments. 16:52:54 ... n-triples only allows that form, but if turtle took the same document and resolved the dot segments out, and n-triples didn't do that, it would be an inconsistency. 16:53:22 ... could avoid saying what to do if the document is not in the correct form. 16:53:28 ora: should be discussed. 16:53:31 uh oh. "period-segments"? "decimal-segments"? "full-stop-segments"? "dot-segments"? 16:53:47 ... how often does this show up? I can't ever remember seeing URIs like that. 16:53:57 ... have to be complete, but I'm curious. 16:54:08 I've seen them plenty. including both `/./` and `/../` 16:54:09 gkellogg: tests are full of IRIs with dot segments. Mostly with relative IRIs. 16:54:09 "dot segments" is the terminology in RFC 3986 16:54:39 ... Ruben had created comprehensive tests for this. Specific test has always been commented out because implementations vary widely. 16:55:46 q+ 16:56:00 "IRIs SHOULD be stable for the resolution algorithm" 16:56:17 "unicode full stop"or simply "dot" "." vs"unicode middle dot" "ยท" 16:56:28 Yes, it might somewhat tangentially relate to https://github.com/w3c/rdf-common/issues/14 regarding "keep bad data" vs. "normalize and drop ill-formed/typed/legal..."? 16:56:29 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-common/issues/14 -> Issue 14 Enable Github pages on this repository to load by URL rather than local copies (by niklasl) 16:56:35 gkellogg: Other places with requirements saying "documents must use this form" and if they don't, then signal a warning. Alleviates having to have normative tests since it's garbage data. 16:56:36 ack niklasl 16:57:08 niklasl: gkellogg touched on what I was going to say. I think different implementations regarding dot segments would be useful to do research. 16:57:41 ... curl for instance handles dot segments. http aware tools get rid of it. Better for n-triples to mandate normalization, otherwise we have this problematic variation. 16:57:54 gkellogg: my implementation does not do that. At one time it did, and it created problems for users. 16:58:34 AndyS: niklasl, your case is different for establishing a target URI. URIs are mutable in RFC. 16:58:38 ... very careful wording in there. 16:58:41 google has no search that finds dots in urls ... so clearly they don't exist 16:58:58 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:58:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin 16:59:07 regrets for next week 17:00:44 olaf has left #rdf-star 17:01:10 RRSAgent, bye 17:01:10 I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-rdf-star-actions.rdf : 17:01:10 ACTION: ora to put a note in RDF-new that "abstract syntax" is now "abstract data model" [1] 17:01:10 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-rdf-star-irc#T16-34-09 regrets+ ktk