Meeting minutes
Approval of last week’s minutes: 1
ora: any concerns with minutes?
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes
<ora> +1
<olaf> +1
<gtw> +1
<lisp> +1
<pfps> +1
<AndyS> +1
<tl> +1
<TallTed> +1
<Enrico> +1
<Dominik_T> +1
<pchampin> +1
<niklasl> +1
<Souri> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes
Identifying issues to solve before CR 2
ora: line item 1 - what are we going to do?
<TallTed> w3c/
<gb> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing] [ms:CR]
w3c/rdf-star-wg#169
tl: there is a PR by Enrico that I haven't seen completely read yet
<pchampin> Enrico's PR: w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 156 Better text in Section 5.3 with the purpose of relating triple terms and asserted triples. (by franconi)
enrico: I created a PR after a conversation with James
enrico: I added some clarification in the text, but no substantive changes
enrico: we could add a class for reifiers
pchampin: I'm -1 on defining a class for reifier because it is syntacti
<niklasl> +1 on "reifier is syntactic"
pchampin: I'm not sure about providing a domain for rdf:reifies
<TallTed> rdf-semantics/pull/156 appears not to have connection to rdf-star-wg/issues/169, at least in github... that is, there is no mention of one in the other
<Enrico> I understand the argument by pchampin, and I agree with him
pchampin: That would be just as vague as reificagtion
pfps: I think we are again in the situation of providing text for others when we are not sure what is wanted
nicklasl: I agree that reifier is syntactic, and vague
niklasl: we don't have a class for the domain of rdfs:label, for example
niklasl: I think that the issue is mostly wording at this point
james: enrico and I had a conversation about the text
pfps: I just find it very frustrating to go on and on without knowing what is wanted
<gb> Pull Request 220 Annotations on assserted triples are based on operational semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR]
<TallTed> and ... w3c/
tl: I posted a comment in w3c/
enrico: I see agreement on PR 156
<AndyS> w3c/
enrico: as far as Semantics is concerned rdf:reifies is not special
enrico: all that is there is that its range is rdfs:Proposition
<niklasl> +1 to explain purpose
<tl> pfps: and my comment w3c/
ora: let's try to finish off these issues
ora: what about other issues?
Issue 129 Distinguish the RDF Data Model from the Abstract Syntax (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [needs discussion] [spec:substantive]
<AndyS> and w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 232 revise to use "abstract data model" to unify "abstract syntax" and "data model" (by lisp)
james: What about w3c/
james: I adopted some changes
james: Peter has already approved the PR
AndyS: james, if this PR is merged can the issue be closed
TallTed: I had an editorial comment
james: I accepted that comment
AndyS: I'll merge the PR
ora: How about moving the datatype definitions?
pchampin: We can close issue
ora: OK
AndyS: The PR needs some work before it can be merged
james: I'll accept the suggested change
Issue 169 Relative IRI Reference should bind to the irelative-ref production (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
ora: what about w3c/
Issue 89 Different parsing of the same absolute IRI with or without base IRI (by Tpt) [ErratumRaised] [ms:CR] [needs discussion]
AndyS: That one is editorial, so I don't see why that is marked as for CR
AndyS: RFC 3986 has some vagueness - there are legal IRIs that don't make much sense for RDF
AndyS: Some of these are treated differently in N-Triples and Turtle because of base issues
<Souri> typo in title of https://
AndyS: I suggest that we add wording about treating IRI schemas correctly if possible
AndyS: So IRIs that are good will be treated the same, but iffy/unwise/ugly IRIs may be treated differently by different systems
ora: There are parts of the IRI spec that allow divergence
AndyS: This requires definining good IRIs
AndyS: There are also issues related to . and .. path components
<TallTed> Souri -- typo now noted on the issue.
pchampin: We already have some wording related to this
pchampin: Better definitions in this area seem indicated
ora: What is required?
AndyS: I haven't checked the state of the PRs so I'm not sure exactly what is still needed.
<pchampin> "RDF safe IRIs" ?
ora: can we resolve this with some small amount of effort
<pchampin> +1
AndyS: Can we remove the CR label on w3c/
<gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/169
ora: We are relying on other standards and we can't fix all their problems
ora: What do we need to say in our spec ti insulate us from their problems
AndyS: In some sense we are using the RFC for something that it wasn't quite intended to be used for
<TallTed> Souri -- `irelative-ref` is actually correct, there.
ora: An explanation on how we use the RFC would be useful
<niklasl> Relying on formal precision (science) based on a technical environment (engineering) is ... challenging.
AndyS: Pierre-Antoine and I will work on this
ora: Please report back next time
w3c/rdf-concepts#143
<doerthe> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 236 Issue #143 (Skolemization) (by doerthe)
doerthe: I have something to do on this, and I would like Enrico's comments
ora: What else?
tl: five lines all relate to one issue
pchampin: I looked at RDF Concepts. I didn't find anything about vagueness of rdf:reifies
pchampin: there was progress on requesting horizontal review
pchampin: we are OK with some because nothing involves their area
ora: Pat Hayes said it is OK to forward his email to the mailing list
ora: I will do this after our meeting
enrico: I committed a change to the semantics PR
ora: is there a SPARQL meeting tomorrow
AndyS: yes
ora: adjourn
<pchampin> s/ora: What else?/Topic: AOB