Meeting minutes
Approval of last week’s minutes: 1
ora: thanks for everybody having the meeting last week.
… minutes are ok?
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes.
<olaf> +1
<ktk> +0
<Enrico> +1
<ora> +0 (not there)
<pchampin> +1
<fsasaki> +1
<lisp> +1
<niklasl> +1
<AndyS> +1
<william-vw> +0 (also not there)
<rubensworks> +0
<gtw> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes.
RDF Test Suite Curation Community Group Chair 2
pa: rdf test suite curation community group has no chair, gregg was the only chair
… currently the test suites are created by the WG = same people as CG
… not urgent, but want the CG to take over once the WG is done
… so we need a chair for the CG. If you are interested or know others, let us know
adrian: how do volunteer process wise?
pa: anybody can self nominate AFAIK
… but anyway, would be good to have somebody to take over once the WG is done
Identifying issues to solve before CR 3
ora: topics for today: where are we WRT wording of how reifiers are explained.
adrian: we want to move to horizontal review. Closing the PRs would help for that (even if it is not absolutely required)
ora: niklas is right, we may also just close some PRs
ora: RDF concept PR 237 is ready to merge
andy: is ready to go. There is a lot of discussion on the PR which is not about the PR
… more like an issue.
… there is material in the discussion of the PR, but we cannot keep PRs open because of long running discussions
adrian: we said previously: we merge, and then a new issue can be created. the discussion of the PR is still available.
<niklasl> +1 to merge, if the discussion entails another issue that can be raised separately.
andy: one can put a summary in of long discussion to make follow ups as issues easier.
<fsasaki> +1 to niklasl
ora: can we merge PR 237 of concepts?
pfps: we do not all people involved in the PR related discussion in today's call
<pchampin> +1 pfps, the remaining discussion on 237 is not related to the PR, it is more general
pfps: my proposal: I will merge the PR and say: we can discuss things separately as needed
w3c/rdf-concepts#220
andy: 220 PR on concepts
… was created in july and no update to the PR since then to reflect the conversation
ora: suggest to close i?
andy: yes
… since we do not move towards consensus
ora: ok, we better should have a formal vote on this to which we can point to
<ora> PROPOSAL: Close without merging w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 220 Annotations on assserted triples are based on operational semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR]
<Enrico> +1
<ora> +1
<niklasl> +1
<fsasaki> +1
<rubensworks> +0
<pfps> +1
<AndyS> +1
<lisp> +0
<niklasl> Yes, *close* without merging
<olaf> +1
<pchampin> +1
<ktk> +1
<william-vw> +0
<ktk> TallTed reports +1 on Zoom
RESOLUTION: Close without merging w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 220 Annotations on asserted triples are based on operational semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR]
<pchampin> s/+1 on IRC/+1 on Zoom
andy: I will do that after the call
w3c/rdf-star-wg#169
<ora> PROPOSAL: Close issue #169
<gb> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [ms:CR]
<pfps> +1
<Enrico> +1
<ora> +1
<ktk> +1
<niklasl> +1
<lisp> +0
<fsasaki> +1
<pchampin> +1
<AndyS> +1
<william-vw> +0
<olaf> +1
<rubensworks> +0
<TallTed> +1
RESOLUTION: Close issue #169
<gb> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [ms:CR]
w3c/rdf-concepts#79
pa: on rdf-concepts still
… two issues in concepts marked as relevant for CR
… rdf concepts 79
… not blocking, we need to respond to submitter
… but we will not change that
ora: so we remove the ms:CR tag and someone will respond?
pa: yes, and I will make a response
w3c/rdf-concepts#119
pa: the other issue in concepts: there is a misplaced issue
… it is an issue on RDF schema, will not block rdf concepts from going to CR
<niklasl> 1+
<niklasl> w3c/
<gb> Issue 119 Updated RDFS vocabularies for RDF 1.2 (by marcelotto) [ms:CR] [propose closing] [spec:editorial]
<AndyS> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 64 Add canonical Turtle for RDF-recognized XSD datatypes (`ns/rdf-xsd.ttl`) (by domel)
pfps: trying to resolve that, so may be a different one
pa: agree
andy: suggest to add the link and close the issue
<niklasl> Also w3c/
<gb> Issue 61 Ensure text about propositions and reifies is aligned with RDF Concepts (by niklasl)
pfps: will add a link to the related pull request in schema and then close the issue on concepts
… schema 64 and schema 61
enrico: proposal to close things in semantics
… PR from ted, can be merged
<pchampin> w3c/
enrico: three blocking issues : 1) related to interpolation lemma, being checked by Doerthe and pfps
… proof will not be published anyway
<ktk> Proof: w3c/
<gb> -> Issue 102 Check if the interpolation lemma is still true given the new semantics (by franconi) [ms:CR] [spec:enhancement]
enrico: proof is in issue 102
enrico: in RDF 1.0 the proof was there, in RDF 1.1. it disappeared
… next issue, blocking: about appendix A: are the rules complete or not?
<pchampin> I for one would prefer to include the proof (or at least a proof sketch) in the spec (non normatively)
enrico: I say: do not change anything
… and this is not relevant in practice
… completeness of algorithm does not have practical relevance
… suggest to keep text in appendix A as is and close the issue
… third point about appendix B
… theoretical informal appendix
… hard to follow, mostly correct
… not sure why that appendix exists, it is not useful for any reader
… proposal: delete apendix b
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to say that I'm happy removing the finite model appendix (but add a change note)
enrico: these are my three proposals
pfps: happy to have appendix B removed, we just need to put a related note
ted: suggest to have time to check things until next week
ora: happy to give people a week
… but it should not delay the timing of the horizontal review
ted: agree, horizontal review can go out
<niklasl> see https://
niklasl: would above definition be problematic if removed?
<niklasl> This will remain https://
<pfps> I can't imagine where it would be used.
niklasl: no objections from me
ora: if we remove these, do we remove them or make them into separate notes
pfps: appendix will still be in RDF 1.1.
… change note in RDF 1.2 helps to trace the change
niklasl: doerthe may have a thought on that, not on the call
pa: vote during a meeting is open for a week so that people not on the call can add their opinion
ora: let us vote next week
… we can hear from Doerthe inbetween
… still we get going with horizontal review
<Enrico> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 159 fixing #158 (by TallTed)
enrico: to Ted, can I merge the above PR?
enrico: graphs have not interchangable models but can be interchanged in these models
… a formal thing
ted: will take a look again
… and then get back to enrico
pfps: status of IRI issues?
andy: little progress because of time
… but nothing blocking going to review
<pchampin> +1 this is blocking CR, but not Horizontal Review
ora: anything else before we start horizontal and TAG review?
andy: need to start TAG review
pa: before we publish spec as CR we need to get feedback at large beyond the group
… horizontal groups in W3C are included: access, i18n, security, privacy, and TAG
… TAG ensures that we do not break the web architecture with the new spec
ora: that is why we should start soon
andy: is it 8 weeks review time?
pa: 8 weeks sounds OK, there is no clear time defined in the process
… the groups have to do a lot of reviews, so it will take some time
ora: so we start the horizontal review and trigger other discussions
… once these are done we go for really wide review
adrian: do we need to vote?
<ora> PROPOSAL: Start horizontal reviews (including TAG)
ora: it is chairs discretion but we can vote
<fsasaki> +1
<william-vw> +1
<ktk> +1
<ora> +1
<olaf> +1
<AndyS> +1
<lisp> +0
<niklasl> +1
<Souri> +1
<gtw> +1
<rubensworks> +1
pa: need to identify for which specy
ora: concepts, semantics, n-triples go to horizontal review
<ora> PROPOSAL: Start horizontal reviews (including TAG) for Concepts, Semantics, Ntriples
<pchampin> +1
<olaf> +1
<fsasaki> +1
<niklasl> +1
<Souri> +1
<rubensworks> +1
<ora> +1
<ktk> +1
<AndyS> +1
<william-vw> +1
<lisp> +0
<TallTed> +1
RESOLUTION: Start horizontal reviews (including TAG) for Concepts, Semantics, Ntriples
ora: chairs will take this up
… thanks a lot, we made a lot of progress today!
… regrets next week for me