Meeting minutes
<enrico> I am travelling, so I will passively listening today.
olaf: the two WG chairs are not here today
pchampin: Comments about the minutes?
<pfps> last week's minutes look fine to me
Approval of last week’s minutes: 1
pchampin: other comments on the minutes?
<pchampin> PROPOSAL: approve last week minutes at https://
<niklasl> +1
<pchampin> +1
<gtw> +1
<enrico> +1
<olaf> +1
<lisp> +1
<tl> +1
<TallTed> +1
<pfps> +1
<AndyS> +1
RESOLUTION: approve last week minutes at https://
pchampin: no open actions?
open actions https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3
pchampin: any comments on the open actions?
… I have marked mine as 'proposed to close'
<niklasl> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 238 Further explain abstract data model and abstract syntax (by niklasl) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
<pfps> It looks as of #7 and #8 have been done.
Action 172 take a stab at the paragraph differentiating abstract syntax and data model at this stage
niklasl: The mentioned PR addresses action 7
<pfps> And probably number 9
pchampin: the PR for 38 is still open
… I guess we want to keep the action open until the PR is merged
… the PR is approved by all editors
… to close the action, I propose we merge PR 238
<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.
pchampin: there are still some points open in this PR, and there are some discussions on the commits
… Maybe the PR is not ripe for merging.
… There are still comments by Dominik and by TallTed
TallTed: I am having trouble figuring out the order of things in this PR
niklasl: As Dominik is not here, I cannot merge the PR now.
… The only thing that the PR does is that it links to a definition.
… The remaining thing for this PR is that Dominik approves the PR.
… I will ping him in the PR
pchampin: I closed my action (which was marked as proposed for closing)
Action 173 try to revise `Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs`, now in appendix b (on doerthe) due 2025-08-14
pchampin: there was an action for doerthe
doerthe: There was a PR, which is not merged.
pchampin: We should link the PR to the action
<gb> Pull Request 157 Fixed skolem text with simple entailment (by franconi)
pchampin: which one is it?
doerthe: the one in RDF Concepts
<pchampin> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 236 Issue #143 (Skolemization) (by doerthe)
pchampin: we have approvals on this PR from some of the Concepts editors and from the Semantics editors
TallTed: I have not reviewed this PR yet.
… it is on my TODO list.
<pfps> At some time the process should be to merge and anyone with problems can comment afterwards.
AndyS: All your (TallTed) changes have gone in.
TallTed: I believe you, but there have also been other changes that went in.
Action 174 draft PR replacing `data model` with `abstract syntax` (and vice versa?) to see what happens (on lisp) due 2025-08-14
<pchampin> w3c/
<gb> MERGED Pull Request 232 revise to use "abstract data model" to unify "abstract syntax" and "data model" (by lisp)
pchampin: I believe that this (merged) PR addressed the action.
<pfps> James has done this action a while ago - there is a draft PR (whether or not it has been merged)
lisp: That was the intent last week when it was merged.
<pchampin> close #174
<gb> Closed issue #174
<lisp> andy made the actual merge...
TallTed: Please add a link form the action to the PR
pchampin: okay, done
… any other action that we can address?
Identifying issues to solve before CR 2
<pfps> I added a couple of editorial issues/PRs that should be completed before CR
pchampin: Is there any issue here that is ready for discussion?
… maybe we should start with "that" (?)
Pull Request 238 Further explain abstract data model and abstract syntax (by niklasl) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
pchampin: PR 238 (Concepts) has approval from the editors
… ah, that's the one we discussed earlier
… One PR on RDF Concepts by William is open
Pull Request 240 Review sec1.5 wv (by william-vw)
pchampin: it is related to the discussion of reifies
… The PR is reordering the arguments in Sec.1.5
… personally, I am happy with the latest changes in that PR
… Also, it may deprecate my own PR
<tl> I haven't had a look at this (wasn't aware of it)
<gb> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing] [ms:CR]
niklasl: I need to look closely at this PR, but I have the same general impression. Yet, I still need to confirm.
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to note that we still have w3c/
niklasl: It is editorial, which means it is not necessarily CR related.
Critical path, issues preventing progress on RDF Semantics
pfps: We still have all these issues that are blocking progress on Semantics
<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to say this is another that I expect to get to reviewing today, perhaps tomorrow
pfps: That will involve a lot of work, and thus is the critical path.
<enrico> +1 pfps, I have to focus on these issues
TallTed: I haven't reviewed that one either.
AndyS: I don't think there is anything on the substance of Concepts and work on Semantics can continue.
pchampin: Yes, we are talking only about informative content. No proposed normative change around this issue.
<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
<Souri> +
TallTed: Depenendcy order for the repos should be mapped
pchampin: The dependency is captured by the references from one doc to another.
TallTed: I would like this to be explicit; do this one first because it affects the other, etc.
pchampin: I will try to get us such a dependency graph.
ACTION: pchampin to find a way to extract a dependency graph of our specs
ACTION: pchampin to find a way to extract a dependency graph of our specs
<gb> Created action #179
<pfps> the blocking items that I see are numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to state that I consider that there are several items in this dashboard that are blocking finalizing semantics
pfps: I see several issues on this list that are blocking Semantics
… these issues have comments that can be interpreted to require changes to how Semantics works
AndyS: which issues do you mean?
pfps: the first four
AndyS: I shuffled them before the telecon
… the second one on the list has been taken over by William's PR
<AndyS> Item 2 is rdf-concepts - 220
pfps: still someone seems to want changes to Semantics
<gb> Pull Request 237 explain the rdf:reifies is deliberately abstract (by pchampin) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
<gb> Pull Request 220 Annotations on assserted triples are based on operational semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR]
<gb> Issue 46 Why quoted triples, when we already have named graphs? (by lars-hellstrom) [ms:CR] [wr:pending]
tl: The PR on Semantics can be closed without merging
<gb> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing] [ms:CR]
tl: and the changes need to by done in Concepts or in Schema
… I am not requesting any changes to Semantics.
pchampin: tl's PR on Semantics has indeed been closed
… tl, do you share my impression that the solution will be exclusively in non-normative sections?
… That would make it easier to have the work on Semantics continue.
tl: I am not aware which section is normative.
… There should be a change to Sec.1.5 in Concepts
… There should be a change to Schema
… There is no need to change Semantics
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to mention even for triple terms implying the truth of the triple
tl: I don't know why it is important whether this is about normative or not.
<TallTed> 1
<TallTed> 2
<TallTed> 3
<TallTed> 4
<gb> Pull Request 220 Annotations on assserted triples are based on operational semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR]
<gb> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing] [ms:CR]
<gb> Pull Request 237 explain the rdf:reifies is deliberately abstract (by pchampin) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
<gb> Issue 46 Why quoted triples, when we already have named graphs? (by lars-hellstrom) [ms:CR] [wr:pending]
pfps: There was an illusion to a RDF-star. Going back to that will change Semantics.
<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
AndyS: item 1 in the list has been 'proposed to close' since along time
… for the named graphs issue, it shouldn't be on this list.
… It shouldn't be marked 'cr'
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.
tl: forgot why I queued
niklasl: Was it about whether you want triple terms to be in entailed (?)
tl: I remember I mentioned RDF-star, but I don't remember in what context.
… We will have a vote for it, and I will have to think what my vote will be.
… I am made to believe that the machinery in Semantics can be used to define rdfs:states
tl: I don't see why pfps is afraid that Semantics would need to be changed.
… neither theoretically nor in practice
pchampin: Going back to the issue raised by AndyS
… Concepts 46 has a long discussion
<enrico> The extension tl is talking about has been defined more than a year ago in https://
pchampin: Do we collectively think that we have provided enough feedback on this issue, or should it be synthesized?
<pchampin> STRAWPOLL: we will close w3c/
<gb> Issue 46 Why quoted triples, when we already have named graphs? (by lars-hellstrom) [ms:CR] [wr:pending]
<pfps> adding rdf:states to RDF (entailment) would require re-checking some of the parts of Semantics
<niklasl> +1 but we need to respond
<lisp> +0 it depends on the response
<enrico> +1
<pfps> creating a new semantic extension for xx:states would not (so long as the semantic extension is not in Semantics)
niklasl: Closing the issue without further response, is debatable
… The question will come up again
<niklasl> +1 for removing ms:CR
AndyS: all we need to do now is to remove the CR tag
pchampin: removing the CR tag means we are not intending to make any normative change in the direction of the issue
<pchampin> STRAWPOLL: we will not make any substantive change relative to w3c/
<gb> Issue 46 Why quoted triples, when we already have named graphs? (by lars-hellstrom) [ms:CR] [wr:pending]
<pfps> +1
<AndyS> +1
<olaf> +1
<lisp> +1
<doerthe> +1
<Souri> +1
<gtw> +1
<tl> +0
<enrico> +1
<niklasl> +1
<TallTed> +1
pchampin: Okay, I will remove the CR tag from the issue
<pfps> +1 to nicklasl
<enrico> +1 to niklasl
AndyS: I will put a link to the strawpoll into the issue, after the meeting
pchampin: Any low-hanging fruit in the list that we can resolve in the remaining minutes
… ?
AndyS: There is a batch of CR-tagged issues about being clear about IRIs
… I didn't have time to address them
pchampin: time to adjourn
<tl> enrico thank you for that hint. maybe I'll have to re-consider if no change sto RDF Semnatics are desired
AndyS: there is a SPARQL TF meeting tomorrow