15:57:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:57:27 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-rdf-star-irc
15:57:27 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-star
15:57:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:57:59 <lisp> lisp has joined #rdf-star
15:58:08 <TallTed> present+
15:58:54 <TallTed> meeting: RDF & SPARQL WG
15:59:17 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/09/11-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:59:17 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/09/25-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:59:29 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
15:59:46 <pfps> present+
16:00:20 <niklasl> present+
16:00:46 <olaf> present+
16:00:56 <AndyS> present+
16:01:21 <pchampin> present+
16:01:55 <olaf> scribe+
16:01:55 <gtw> present+
16:02:00 <TallTed> chair: pchampin
16:02:00 <TallTed> scribe: olaf
16:02:01 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
16:02:09 <enrico> present+
16:02:12 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
16:02:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:02:31 <enrico> I am travelling, so I will passively listening today.
16:02:45 <pchampin> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e39fe026-428e-4736-8476-cb179725a892/20250918T120000/
16:02:45 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:02:45 <agendabot> agenda+ Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/09/11-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:02:45 <agendabot> agenda+ Identifying issues to solve before CR -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/8
16:02:56 <olaf> olaf: the two WG chairs are not here today
16:03:07 <tl> present+
16:03:10 <TallTed> i/chair: pchampin/agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e39fe026-428e-4736-8476-cb179725a892/20250918T120000/
16:03:20 <olaf> pchampin: Comments about the minutes?
16:03:29 <pfps> present+
16:03:40 <pchampin> regrets+ ktk
16:03:42 <pchampin> regrets+ ora
16:03:43 <pchampin> regrets+ AZ
16:04:32 <pfps> last week's minutes look fine to me
16:04:56 <pchampin> zakim, open item 1
16:04:56 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/09/11-rdf-star-minutes.html -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:05:16 <pchampin> q?
16:05:17 <olaf> ... other comments on the minutes?
16:05:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:05:28 <lisp> present+
16:05:49 <pchampin> PROPOSAL: approve last week minutes at  https://www.w3.org/2025/09/11-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:05:51 <niklasl> +1
16:05:52 <pchampin> +1
16:05:54 <gtw> +1
16:05:54 <enrico> +1
16:05:55 <olaf> +1
16:05:58 <lisp> +1
16:05:59 <tl> +1
16:06:04 <TallTed> +1
16:06:36 <pfps> +1
16:06:36 <AndyS> +1
16:06:36 <pchampin> RESOLVED: approve last week minutes at  https://www.w3.org/2025/09/11-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:06:38 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:06:44 <doerthe> present+
16:06:57 <olaf> pchampin: no open actions?
16:07:03 <pchampin> topic: open actions https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3
16:07:24 <olaf> ... any comments on the open actions?
16:07:29 <niklasl> q+
16:07:43 <olaf> ... I have marked mine as 'proposed to close'
16:07:44 <pchampin> ack niklasl
16:07:57 <niklasl> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/238
16:07:57 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/238 -> Pull Request 238 Further explain abstract data model and abstract syntax (by niklasl) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
16:08:12 <pfps> It looks as of #7 and #8 have been done.
16:08:13 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/7 -> CLOSED Issue 7 test *again* ghurlbot configuration (by ghurlbot)
16:08:13 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/8 -> CLOSED Action 8 test *again* ghurlbot configuration (on ) due 13 Jan 2023
16:08:22 <olaf> niklasl: The mentioned PR addresses action 7
16:08:22 <pchampin> i|github|subtopic: action #172
16:08:37 <pfps> And probably number 9
16:09:11 <olaf> pchampin: the PR for 38 is still open
16:09:26 <olaf> ... I guess we want to keep the action open until the PR is merged
16:10:40 <olaf> ... the PR is approved by all editors
16:11:02 <olaf> ... to close the action, I propose we merge PR 238
16:11:06 <pfps> If the action is completed then it should be either closed or amended to state that getting something merged is part of the action.
16:11:29 <olaf> ... there are still some points open in this PR, and there are some discussions on  the commits
16:11:47 <olaf> ... Maybe the PR is not ripe for merging.
16:12:13 <olaf> ... There are still comments by Dominik and by TallTed
16:12:39 <pchampin> q?
16:13:02 <olaf> TallTed: I am having trouble figuring out the order of things in this PR
16:13:31 <olaf> niklasl: As Dominik is not here, I cannot merge the PR now.
16:13:58 <olaf> ... The only thing that the PR does is that it links to a definition.
16:14:27 <olaf> ... The remaining thing for this PR is that Dominik approves the PR.
16:14:36 <olaf> ... I will ping him in the PR
16:15:19 <olaf> pchampin: I closed my action (which was marked as proposed for closing)
16:15:26 <pchampin> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/173
16:15:26 <gb> s|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/173|-> Action 173 try to revise `Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs`, now in appendix b (on doerthe) due 2025-08-14 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/173
16:15:31 <olaf> ... there was an action for doerthe
16:15:52 <olaf> doerthe: There was a PR, which is not merged.
16:16:11 <olaf> pchampin: We should link the PR to the action
16:16:17 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/157 -> Pull Request 157 Fixed skolem text with simple entailment (by franconi)
16:16:21 <olaf> ... which one is it?
16:16:37 <olaf> doerthe: the one in RDF Concepts
16:16:50 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/236
16:16:51 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/236 -> Pull Request 236 Issue #143 (Skolemization) (by doerthe)
16:17:07 <pchampin> q?
16:18:05 <olaf> pchampin: we have approvals on this PR from some of the Concepts editors and from the Semantics editors
16:18:18 <olaf> TallTed: I have not reviewed this PR yet.
16:18:26 <olaf> ... it is on my TODO list.
16:18:51 <pfps> At some time the process should be to merge and anyone with problems can comment afterwards.
16:18:53 <olaf> AndyS: All your (TallTed) changes have gone in.
16:19:09 <olaf> TallTed: I believe you, but there have also been other changes that went in.
16:19:41 <pchampin> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/174
16:19:42 <gb> s|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/174|-> Action 174 draft PR replacing `data model` with `abstract syntax` (and vice versa?) to see what happens (on lisp) due 2025-08-14 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/174
16:20:21 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/232
16:20:21 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/232 -> MERGED Pull Request 232 revise to use "abstract data model" to unify "abstract syntax" and "data model" (by lisp)
16:20:43 <olaf> pchampin: I believe that this (merged) PR addressed the action.
16:20:44 <pfps> James has done this action a while ago - there is a draft PR (whether or not it has been merged)
16:20:59 <olaf> james: That was the intent last week when it was merged.
16:21:13 <pchampin> close #174
16:21:16 <gb> Closed -> issue #174 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/174
16:21:19 <olaf> s/james:/lisp:
16:21:25 <lisp> andy made the actual merge...
16:21:54 <olaf> TallTed: Please add a link form the action to the PR
16:22:01 <olaf> pchampin: okay, done
16:22:25 <olaf> ... any other action that we can address?
16:22:27 <pchampin> q?
16:22:32 <pchampin> zakim, open item 2
16:22:32 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Identifying issues to solve before CR -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/8 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:23:14 <pfps> I added a couple of editorial issues/PRs that should be completed before CR
16:23:28 <olaf> pchampin: Is there any issue here that is ready for discussion?
16:23:55 <olaf> ... maybe we should start with "that" (?)
16:24:12 <pchampin> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/238
16:24:13 <gb> s|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/238|-> Pull Request 238 Further explain abstract data model and abstract syntax (by niklasl) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/238
16:24:37 <olaf> ... PR 238 (Concepts) has approval from the editors
16:24:46 <olaf> ... ah, that's the one we discussed earlier
16:25:04 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:25:10 <Souri> present+
16:25:22 <olaf> ... One PR on RDF Concepts by William is open
16:25:34 <pchampin> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/240
16:25:34 <gb> s|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/240|-> Pull Request 240 Review sec1.5 wv (by william-vw) https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/240
16:25:54 <olaf> ... it is related to the discussion of reifies
16:26:12 <olaf> ... The PR is reordering the arguments in Sec.1.5
16:26:16 <niklasl> q+
16:26:30 <olaf> ... personally, I am happy with the latest changes in that PR
16:27:06 <olaf> ... Also, it may deprecate my own PR
16:27:07 <tl> I haven't had a look at this (wasn't aware of it)
16:27:21 <pfps> q+ to note that we still have https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/169
16:27:21 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/169 -> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing] [ms:CR]
16:27:23 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
16:27:28 <enrico> present+
16:27:32 <pchampin> ack niklasl
16:28:05 <olaf> niklasl: I need to look closely at this PR, but I have the same general impression. Yet, I still need to confirm.
16:28:19 <TallTed> q+ to say this is another that I expect to get to reviewing today, perhaps tomorrow
16:28:23 <pchampin> ack pfps
16:28:23 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to note that we still have https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/169
16:28:29 <olaf> ... It is editorial, which means it is not necessarily CR related.
16:28:52 <olaf> pfps: We still have all these issues that are blocking progress on Semantics
16:28:59 <AndyS> q+
16:29:10 <pchampin> q+
16:29:13 <pchampin> ack TallTed
16:29:13 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to say this is another that I expect to get to reviewing today, perhaps tomorrow
16:29:33 <pchampin> ack AndyS
16:29:33 <olaf> ... That will involve a lot of work, and thus is the highest priority.
16:29:43 <enrico> +1 pfps, I have to focus on these issues
16:29:43 <olaf> TallTed: I haven't reviewed that one either.
16:29:54 <pfps> s/highest priority/critical path/
16:30:08 <pchampin> ack pchampin
16:30:16 <olaf> AndyS: I don't think there is anything on the substance of Concepts and work on Semantics can continue.
16:30:50 <pfps> q+ to comment on normative change
16:30:53 <olaf> pchampin: Yes, we are talking only about informative content. No proposed normative change around this issue.
16:31:03 <TallTed> q+ to ask that we capture the repo/document dependency order, that will capture the order we should review/attack current issues & PRs
16:31:07 <pfps> q-
16:31:16 <pchampin> ack TallTed
16:31:16 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to ask that we capture the repo/document dependency order, that will capture the order we should review/attack current issues & PRs
16:31:35 <Souri> +
16:31:45 <olaf> TallTed: Depenendcy order for the repos should be mapped
16:32:14 <pfps> q+ to state that I consider that there are several items in this dashboard that are blocking finalizing semantics
16:32:18 <AndyS> q+
16:32:27 <olaf> pchampin: The dependency is captured by the references from one doc to another.
16:32:36 <tl> q+
16:32:56 <olaf> TallTed: I would like this to be explicit; do this one first because it affects the other, etc.
16:33:15 <olaf> pchampin: I will try to get us such a dependency graph.
16:33:34 <pchampin> ACTION pchampin to find a way to extract a dependency graph of our specs
16:33:44 <pchampin> ACTION: pchampin to find a way to extract a dependency graph of our specs
16:33:52 <gb> Created -> action #179 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/179
16:33:52 <pfps> the blocking items that I see are numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4
16:33:52 <pchampin> ack pfps
16:33:52 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to state that I consider that there are several items in this dashboard that are blocking finalizing semantics
16:34:11 <olaf> pfps: I see several issues on this list that are blocking Semantics
16:34:40 <pchampin> ack AndyS
16:34:42 <olaf> ... these issues have comments that can be interpreted to require changes to how Semantics works
16:34:45 <pchampin> q+
16:34:54 <olaf> AndyS: which issues do you mean?
16:35:01 <olaf> pfps: the first four
16:35:23 <olaf> AndyS: I shuffled them before the telecon
16:36:08 <olaf> ... the second one on the list has been taken over by William's PR
16:36:15 <pchampin> ack tl
16:36:27 <AndyS> Item 2 is rdf-concepts - 220
16:36:29 <olaf> pfps: still someone seems to want changes to Semantics
16:36:48 <TallTed> 1 -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/169, 2 -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/220, 3 -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/237, 4 -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/46
16:36:49 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/237 -> Pull Request 237 explain the rdf:reifies is deliberately abstract (by pchampin) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
16:36:49 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/220 -> Pull Request 220 Annotations on assserted triples are based on operational semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR]
16:36:49 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/46 -> Issue 46 Why quoted triples, when we already have named graphs? (by lars-hellstrom) [ms:CR] [wr:pending]
16:36:50 <olaf> tl: The PR on Semantics can be closed without merging
16:36:50 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/169 -> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing] [ms:CR]
16:37:24 <olaf> ... and the changes need to by done in Concepts or in Schema
16:37:29 <pchampin> q?
16:37:39 <olaf> ... I am not requesting any changes to Semantics.
16:37:40 <pfps> q+ to mention even for triple terms implying the truth of the triple
16:37:42 <pchampin> ack pchampin
16:37:44 <AndyS> q+
16:37:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:38:02 <olaf> pchampin: tl's PR on Semantics has indeed been closed
16:38:35 <olaf> ... tl, do you share my impression that the solution will be exclusively in non-normative sections?
16:39:26 <olaf> ... That would make it easier to have the work on Semantics continue.
16:39:36 <olaf> tl: I am not aware which section is normative.
16:39:50 <olaf> ... There should be a change to Sec.1.5 in Concepts
16:40:01 <olaf> ... There should be a change to Schema
16:40:02 <niklasl> q+
16:40:11 <olaf> ... There is no need to change Semantics
16:40:33 <pchampin> ack pfps
16:40:33 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to mention even for triple terms implying the truth of the triple
16:40:34 <olaf> ... I don't know why it is important whether this is about normative or not.
16:40:57 <TallTed> s|1 -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/169, 2 -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/220, 3 -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/237, 4 -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/46||
16:41:01 <TallTed> 1 -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/169
16:41:01 <TallTed> 2 -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/220
16:41:01 <TallTed> 3 -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/237
16:41:01 <TallTed> 4 -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/46
16:41:02 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/220 -> Pull Request 220 Annotations on assserted triples are based on operational semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR]
16:41:02 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/169 -> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing] [ms:CR]
16:41:02 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/237 -> Pull Request 237 explain the rdf:reifies is deliberately abstract (by pchampin) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
16:41:03 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/46 -> Issue 46 Why quoted triples, when we already have named graphs? (by lars-hellstrom) [ms:CR] [wr:pending]
16:41:08 <tl> q+
16:41:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:41:20 <pchampin> ack AndyS
16:41:22 <olaf> pfps: There was an illusion to a RDF-star. Going back to that will change Semantics.
16:41:49 <pfps> going back to having the presence of a quoted triple in an RDF graph asserting that triple would be a change to the semantics
16:41:52 <niklasl> q-
16:41:54 <olaf> AndyS: item 1 in the list has been 'proposed to close' since  along time
16:41:56 <niklasl> q+
16:42:38 <olaf> ... for the named graphs issue, it shouldn't be on this list.
16:43:01 <olaf> ... It shouldn't be marked 'cr'
16:43:51 <olaf> pchampin: Yes, we should be able to close this issue. It is mainly a matter of putting the arguments together and writing a response to the issue.
16:44:34 <pchampin> ack tl
16:44:36 <pchampin> ack niklasl
16:44:48 <olaf> tl: forgot why I queued
16:45:17 <olaf> niklasl: Was it about whether you want triple terms to be in entailed (?)
16:45:45 <olaf> tl: I remember I mentioned RDF-star, but I don't remember in what context.
16:46:14 <olaf> ... We will have a vote for it, and I will have to think what my vote will be.
16:46:44 <olaf> ... I made to believe that the machinery in Semantics can be used to define rdf:states
16:47:00 <olaf> s/I made/I am made
16:47:18 <pchampin> q?
16:47:30 <pfps> q+
16:47:33 <olaf> tl: I don't see why pfps is afraid that Semantics would need to be changed.
16:47:42 <olaf> ... neither theoretically nor in practice
16:47:57 <pfps> q-
16:48:00 <olaf> pchampin: Going back to the issue raised by AndyS
16:48:15 <olaf> ... Concepts 46 has a long discussion
16:48:21 <enrico> The extension tl is talking about has been defined more than a year ago in https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Extending-the-baseline-with-%22asserted%22-stuff . We decided not to include it in RDF 1.2, but it is a sound extension that tl could consider in the future
16:48:23 <niklasl> q+ [probably] re. the other tangent (named graphs)
16:48:23 <tl> s/rdf:states/rdfs:states
16:48:28 <niklasl> q+
16:48:59 <olaf> ... Do we collectively think that we have provided enough feedback on this issue, or should it be synthesized?
16:49:06 <pchampin> STRAWPOLL: we will close https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/46 as "won't fix"
16:49:07 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/46 -> Issue 46 Why quoted triples, when we already have named graphs? (by lars-hellstrom) [ms:CR] [wr:pending]
16:49:20 <pfps> adding rdf:states to RDF (entailment) would require re-checking some of the parts of Semantics
16:49:26 <niklasl> +1 but we need to respond
16:49:27 <AndyS> q+
16:49:45 <lisp> +0 it depends on the response
16:49:48 <pchampin> ack niklasl
16:49:48 <enrico> +1
16:50:08 <pfps> creating a new semantic extension for xx:states would not (so long as the semantic extension is not in Semantics)
16:50:32 <olaf> niklasl: Closing the issue without further response, is debatable
16:50:48 <olaf> ... The question will come up again
16:50:51 <pchampin> ack AndyS
16:51:06 <niklasl> +1 for removing ms:CR
16:51:07 <olaf> AndyS: all we need to do now is to remove the CR tag
16:52:06 <olaf> pchampin: removing the CR tag means we are not intending to make any normative change in the direction of the issue
16:52:19 <pchampin> STRAWPOLL: we will not make any substantive change relative to https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/46 , so we can remove ms:CR and address it later
16:52:19 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/46 -> Issue 46 Why quoted triples, when we already have named graphs? (by lars-hellstrom) [ms:CR] [wr:pending]
16:52:27 <pfps> +1
16:52:29 <AndyS> +1
16:52:30 <olaf> +1
16:52:32 <lisp> +1
16:52:35 <doerthe> +1
16:52:36 <Souri> +1
16:52:37 <gtw> +1
16:52:43 <tl> +0
16:52:48 <enrico> +1
16:52:49 <niklasl> +1
16:53:10 <olaf> pchampin: Okay, I will remove the CR tag from the issue
16:53:12 <pfps> +1 to nicklasl
16:53:28 <enrico> +1 to niklasl
16:54:03 <olaf> AndyS: I will put a link to the strawpoll into the issue, after the meeting
16:54:54 <olaf> pchampin: Any low-hanging fruit in the list that we can resolve in the remaining minutes
16:55:15 <AndyS> q?
16:55:15 <olaf> ... ?
16:55:19 <AndyS> q+
16:55:28 <pchampin> ack AndyS
16:55:48 <olaf> AndyS: There is  abatch of CR-tagged issues about being clear about IRIs
16:56:05 <olaf> ... I didn't have time to address them
16:56:11 <olaf> s/abatch/a batch
16:56:42 <olaf> pchampin: time to adjourn
16:56:44 <tl> enrico thank you for that hint. maybe I'll have to re-consider if no change sto RDF Semnatics are desired
16:56:53 <pchampin> q?
16:57:17 <olaf> AndyS: there is a SPARQL TF meeting tomorrow
16:57:22 <TallTed> i/I will remove the CR/<TallTed> +1
16:57:36 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:57:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:03:31 <pchampin> s|subtopic: action #172|subtopic: -> Action 172 take a stab at the paragraph differentiating abstract syntax and data model at this stage https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/172
17:03:35 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:03:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:05:43 <pchampin> s|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/7 -> CLOSED Issue 7 test *again* ghurlbot configuration (by ghurlbot)|
17:05:50 <pchampin> s|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/8 -> CLOSED Action 8 test *again* ghurlbot configuration (on ) due 13 Jan 2023|
17:05:52 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:05:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:09:38 <pchampin> i|We still have all these issues that are blocking|subtopic: Critical path, issues preventing progress on RDF Semantics
17:09:40 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:09:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:10:34 <pchampin> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
17:10:35 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/172#issuecomment-3308618008
17:10:36 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/173#issuecomment-3308618071
17:10:37 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/174#issuecomment-3308618125
17:10:38 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/232#issuecomment-3308618186
17:10:39 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/238#issuecomment-3308618259
17:10:40 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/240#issuecomment-3308618311
17:11:23 <pchampin> RRSAgent, bye
17:11:23 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-rdf-star-actions.rdf :
17:11:23 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pchampin to find a way to extract a dependency graph of our specs [1]
17:11:23 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-rdf-star-irc#T16-33-44