15:57:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:57:24 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-rdf-star-irc
15:57:26 <ktk> meeting:  RDF-Star WG meeting
15:57:33 <ktk> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/11e4d020-9c58-4fff-83c5-37c9e2502295/20251002T120000/
15:57:33 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:57:33 <agendabot> agenda+ Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/09/25-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:57:33 <agendabot> agenda+ Identifying issues to solve before CR -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/8
15:58:30 <ktk> present+
15:58:32 <ktk> chair: ktk
15:58:44 <AndyS> present+
15:58:44 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:58:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
15:58:50 <ktk> RRSAgent, make log public
15:59:04 <ktk> regrets+ ora
15:59:38 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:00:05 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
16:00:13 <AZ> present+
16:00:15 <gtw> present+
16:00:47 <william-vw> william-vw has joined #rdf-star
16:00:48 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:00:51 <william-vw> present+
16:01:16 <lisp> lisp has joined #rdf-star
16:01:41 <ktk> scribe: AZ
16:01:41 <AZ> scribe+
16:01:41 <pchampin> present+
16:01:52 <olaf> present+
16:02:06 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
16:02:06 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:02:09 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
16:02:12 <doerthe> present+
16:02:34 <lisp> present+
16:02:40 <tl> present+
16:02:41 <Dominik_T> present+
16:02:47 <pfps> preset+
16:02:48 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:03:04 <niklasl> present+
16:03:05 <ktk> Zakim, open item 1
16:03:05 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/09/25-rdf-star-minutes.html -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:03:08 <fsasaki> present+
16:03:22 <pfps> minutes look OK to me
16:03:25 <AZ> +0 (I was not present)
16:03:34 <ktk> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes.
16:03:35 <AZ> at either of the 2 meetings
16:03:45 <ktk> +1
16:03:45 <gtw> +1
16:03:45 <lisp> +1
16:03:45 <olaf> +1
16:03:45 <pchampin> +1
16:03:46 <pfps> except for the "biweekly" thing
16:03:49 <pfps> +1
16:03:50 <niklasl> +1
16:03:51 <Dominik_T> +1
16:03:51 <tl> +0 (not present)
16:03:54 <TallTed> present+
16:03:58 <TallTed> +1
16:04:03 <doerthe> +0 (not present)
16:04:17 <fsasaki> +1
16:04:22 <pchampin> pfps, good point, I'll look into that
16:04:28 <ktk> RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes.
16:04:43 <william-vw> +1
16:04:48 <AZ> s/preset+/present+/
16:04:55 <TallTed> previous meeting:  https://www.w3.org/2025/09/25-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:04:55 <TallTed> next meeting:  https://www.w3.org/2025/10/09-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:05:28 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:05:28 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Identifying issues to solve before CR -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/8 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:05:30 <AZ> pchampin: the W3C calendar says biweekly, which does not make sense
16:05:37 <AZ> ... I'll fix it
16:06:02 <AZ> ktk: pchampin, could say a word about horizontal reviews
16:06:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:06:27 <AZ> pchampin: each horizontal group has questions
16:06:42 <AZ> ... we will send the questionnaire to the appropriate groups
16:06:53 <AZ> ktk: some things from these groups do not apply to us
16:07:10 <AZ> ... but we must fill this in before they do their work
16:07:28 <AZ> AndyS: I started looking at it
16:07:53 <AZ> ... we have a reference name, IRI reference
16:08:33 <AZ> ... we must put some things in Turtle etc to add an anchor to it
16:09:06 <AZ> ... in reference to lines 4, 5 and 7
16:09:24 <ktk> q?
16:10:00 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/169 -> Issue 169 Relative IRI Reference should bind to the irelative-ref production (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
16:10:00 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/223 -> Issue 223 RDF Reference IRI (by afs) [ms:CR]
16:10:00 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/issues/73 -> Issue 73 IRI resolution requirements (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [needs discussion] [spec:substantive]
16:10:32 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/89 -> Issue 89 Different parsing of the same absolute IRI with or without base IRI (by Tpt) [ErratumRaised] [ms:CR] [needs discussion]
16:10:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:11:09 <AZ> ktk: any questions for Andy?
16:11:18 <AZ> ... other updates?
16:11:32 <pfps> q+ to ask about line 8
16:12:00 <AZ> ... we are waiting for some input from Dorthe on 102 on Semantics
16:12:30 <TallTed> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/pull/76
16:12:31 <gb> s|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/pull/76|-> Pull Request 76 Add profile parameter (by pchampin) [ms:CR] [needs discussion] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/pull/76
16:12:43 <AZ> pchampin: issue 76 on n-triples is about adding a profile parameter
16:13:09 <AZ> ... it would be good to have a way to signal that the document comply with a given profile
16:13:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:13:42 <AZ> ... I copied the text from JSON-LD where there is a profile parameter
16:13:54 <AndyS> q+
16:13:57 <AZ> ... this would be hard to add after CR
16:14:13 <ktk> ack pfps
16:14:13 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask about line 8
16:14:22 <ktk> ack AndyS
16:14:33 <AZ> pfps: I agree with AndyS's comment that n-triples must be dead simple, but now it's less
16:14:55 <AZ> AndyS: I am not opposed to it, but I don't think it is as simple as pchampin pretend it is
16:15:33 <AZ> ... we have to look at the whole context to see what are the consequences
16:15:54 <pchampin> q+
16:16:06 <ktk> ack pchampin
16:16:16 <niklasl> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6906
16:16:27 <niklasl> The 'profile' Link Relation Type
16:16:41 <AZ> ... RFC 6906 defines the profile optional parameter but refers to 5988 that is the link header
16:16:49 <niklasl> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5988 Web Linking (Link header)
16:17:18 <AZ> pchampin: I agree n-tripels must be dead simple and I think this keeps it simple
16:17:43 <AZ> ... but I agree consequences on conneg may be unforseen
16:18:09 <AZ> ... the RFC defines profile as a link in header
16:18:31 <AZ> ... it encourages adding mediatype as a parameter
16:18:42 <AZ> ... anyway, I don't want to push too much and block CR
16:18:54 <AZ> ... but would be a missed opportunity
16:19:16 <AZ> Dominik_T: I agree with pchampin, nothing too complicated
16:19:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:19:33 <pchampin> q+
16:19:39 <TallTed> s/n-tripels/n-triples/
16:19:44 <ktk> ack pchampin
16:20:04 <AZ> pchampin: if the concern is about conneg then I understand
16:20:11 <AZ> ... we have the option of using the Link header
16:20:31 <AZ> ... we would need a URL for the cannonical form
16:20:45 <AZ> ... then there would not be a problem with conneg
16:21:05 <pfps> I'm still on the "mostly harmless" view here
16:21:09 <AZ> s/cannonical/canonical/
16:21:24 <AZ> ktk: let us address 102 on Semantics
16:21:37 <doerthe> q+
16:21:47 <ktk> ack doerthe
16:21:48 <pchampin> i|let us address|subtopic: w3c/rdf-semantics#102
16:21:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
16:22:17 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:22:25 <Souri> present+
16:22:28 <AZ> doerthe: we are still discussing this issue but not yet finalised
16:23:13 <doerthe> q+
16:23:16 <AZ> ktk: issue139 on Semantics
16:23:31 <AZ> doerthe: we still have to do something on this issue
16:23:58 <ktk> q?
16:24:02 <ktk> ack doerthe
16:24:02 <pchampin> i|issue139 on Semantics|subtopic: w3c/rdf-semantics#139
16:24:11 <AZ> ... a problem with Appendix A now is that we may create an infinite model, not seomthing we want to have, so still some progress to make
16:24:49 <AZ> subtopic: w3c/rdf-semantics#133
16:24:49 <gb> s|w3c/rdf-semantics#133|-> Issue 133 appendix B update needed (by pfps) [ms:CR] [propose closing] [spec:enhancement] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/133
16:25:03 <pchampin> i|I started looking| subtopic: Issues related to IRI w3c/rdf-concepts#223 w3c/rdf-n-triples#73 w3c/rdf-concepts#169
16:25:06 <doerthe> q+
16:25:29 <pfps> q+
16:25:33 <ktk> ack doerthe
16:25:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
16:25:42 <AZ> doerthe: I would like to keep it, but it is ok to close it if others want to
16:25:42 <ktk> ack pfps
16:25:46 <AZ> pfps: this is a very technical appendix
16:26:03 <TallTed> any reason not to make it a NOTE, which may or may not get future attention?
16:26:10 <niklasl> +1 for remove with a pointer to the section in 1.1
16:26:34 <AZ> ... not very important to keep it, but if it is there and someone notice it is wrong, it may become a problem
16:26:42 <ktk> 1?
16:26:51 <AZ> ... there is no consequence for any RDF-related software
16:27:02 <AZ> ktk: should we make it a note?
16:27:16 <AZ> pfps: that would be a separate document
16:27:31 <TallTed> q+
16:27:55 <pchampin> q+
16:28:00 <AZ> enrico: we could put it away for CR and possibly put it back
16:28:18 <ktk> ack TallTed
16:28:27 <doerthe> q+
16:28:30 <AZ> TallTed: as a note, it does not need to be correct
16:28:45 <AZ> ... it just needs the group to have some level of consensus on it
16:29:00 <ktk> ack pchampin
16:29:34 <AZ> pchampin: whether it should be a separate note: it is an informative section so it could be put again after CR; both options are possible
16:29:44 <ktk> ack doerthe
16:30:11 <AZ> doerthe: I want to keep it, but I want to have a corrected version
16:30:13 <ktk> q?
16:32:06 <AZ> subtopic: w3c/rdf-semantics#160
16:32:06 <gb> s|w3c/rdf-semantics#160|-> Pull Request 160 Fixes correctness of Appendix A (from issue #139) (by franconi) [ms:CR] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/160
16:32:32 <AZ> enrico: this is similar to 139 that was discussed before
16:32:47 <pfps> q+
16:33:20 <AZ> pfps: I'm worried that some members of the WG are asking for fundamental changes to the semantics
16:33:39 <ktk> q?
16:33:43 <ktk> ack pfps
16:33:55 <pchampin> q+
16:33:56 <AZ> ... there was soemthing again on changing things related to asserted triples, but we need to close the discussion now
16:34:25 <AZ> pchampin: the issue was closed, so what is still coming back?
16:34:26 <niklasl> It's https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/220
16:34:27 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/220 -> CLOSED Pull Request 220 Annotations on assserted triples are based on operational semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR]
16:35:32 <lisp> q+
16:35:48 <AZ> pfps: this is saying that there is something lacking in Semantics, but are we done now with it, or should we still do something about it
16:36:13 <ktk> ack lisp
16:36:22 <AZ> ktk: we said in previosu meeting that the discussion should be closed
16:36:46 <AZ> james: I made a respond but I did not reopened the issue
16:37:10 <ktk> q?
16:37:19 <ktk> ack pchampin
16:37:20 <AZ> s/james:/lisp:/
16:37:30 <ktk> q?
16:37:59 <AZ> ktk: any other things on Semantics or Concepts?
16:38:25 <ktk> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/11
16:38:25 <AZ> ... there are a numebr of issues with proposed closing
16:38:35 <AZ> s/numebr/number
16:38:52 <tl> q+
16:38:56 <AZ> s/proposed closing/"propose closing"
16:39:23 <AZ> subtopic: w3c/rdf-star-wg#128
16:39:24 <gb> s|w3c/rdf-star-wg#128|-> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [enhancement] [propose closing] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128
16:41:08 <AZ> tl: with the proposal we double the count of triples, with one reified triple for each triple
16:41:41 <AZ> ... using rdfs:states we do not have this problem
16:41:53 <pchampin> FTR, the email that tl is referring to: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2025Sep/0018.html
16:42:05 <pfps> q+
16:42:09 <AZ> ... either we double the triples or we double the properties
16:42:11 <ktk> ack tl
16:42:57 <AZ> ... we may not want to close it now
16:43:20 <AZ> pfps: I don't see why doubling is involved.
16:43:37 <pchampin> q+
16:43:51 <ktk> ack pfps
16:43:57 <ktk> q+ enrico
16:44:26 <AZ> pchampin: my response to the email on the ML
16:44:30 <pfps> the question is how much data is needed for rdf:reifies plus assertion vs just rdf:states.
16:44:48 <AZ> ... was that dealing with graphs is not in our charter
16:45:04 <AZ> ... I think we have good foundation for dealing with grapsh
16:45:15 <tl> q+
16:45:20 <ktk> ack pchampin
16:45:24 <ktk> ack enrico
16:45:28 <AZ> ... I don't think this very much related to the rdf:states thing
16:45:36 <pfps> The latter needs data for the stated triple plus data for the rdf:states triple
16:46:06 <pfps> The former needs data for the stated triple plus data for the rdf:reifies triple
16:46:23 <AZ> enrico: doubling is necessary if you want to have an asserted triple and also in triple term
16:46:36 <pfps> So what is the difference?
16:47:02 <AZ> ... if you use "states" and a triple term, you don't have the triple in the graph to retrieve it with queries
16:47:03 <pchampin> s/dealing with grapsh/dealing with graphs, but that's out of scope for the WG
16:47:07 <niklasl> +1 to what Enrico said. Especially optimization. Stronger semantics enables less materialization.
16:47:17 <ktk> q?
16:47:41 <ktk> ack tl
16:47:42 <ktk> q?
16:47:44 <pfps> A non-optimized implemenation might store two copies of the asserted triple in the rdf:reifies version, but that is in no way necessary.
16:47:47 <AZ> tl: I closed the issue (128) but I hope we can continue the discussion in the mailing list
16:49:29 <AZ> ktk: I'll remove the flag "propose closing" on 133 on semantics
16:50:10 <AZ> we can close w3c/rdf-schema#29
16:50:11 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/issues/29 -> CLOSED Issue 29 addition of rdf:RDFSource on the rdf: vocabulary (by pchampin) [propose closing] [spec:substantive]
16:50:13 <olaf> q+
16:50:45 <ktk> ack olaf
16:50:58 <AZ> ktk: can we close w3c/sparql-query#182 ?
16:50:58 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/182 -> Issue 182 Cover triple terms in definition of  RDFterm-equal (by hartig) [propose closing] [spec:enhancement]
16:51:02 <Dominik_T> q+
16:51:07 <AZ> olaf: yes I confirm it can be closed
16:51:28 <Dominik_T> q-
16:51:46 <AZ> ktk: w3c/rdf-schema#35 can be clsoed too
16:51:46 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/issues/35 -> CLOSED Issue 35 Visual model (by riannella) [propose closing] [spec:editorial]
16:51:53 <AZ> s/clsoed/closed/
16:52:18 <niklasl> q+
16:52:26 <niklasl> q-
16:52:31 <AZ> ktk: can we close w3c/rdf-concepts#172 ?
16:52:31 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/172 -> Issue 172 Define the notion of "atomic term" (by pchampin) [propose closing] [spec:editorial]
16:52:42 <AZ> pchampin: yes we can definitely close it
16:53:17 <tl> q+
16:53:20 <pchampin> q+
16:53:24 <ktk> ack tl
16:53:35 <ktk> ack pchampin
16:53:38 <pchampin> q-
16:53:40 <AZ> ktk: can we close w3c/rdf-turtle#97 ?
16:53:41 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/97 -> Issue 97 Undeterministic roundtripping between Turtle-star annotations syntax and N-triples (by rat10) [propose closing]
16:53:49 <AZ> tl: yes it can be closed
16:54:00 <AZ> ktk: can we close w3c/rdf-turtle#114 ?
16:54:00 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/114 -> Issue 114 why is the term constructor optional in production `reifier`? (by pchampin) [propose closing]
16:54:28 <AZ> pchampin: let's close it
16:54:46 <tl> q+
16:54:56 <ktk> ack tl
16:55:08 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:55:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
16:58:05 <pchampin> i|I'll remove the flag|topic: Issues marked as "proposed closing"
16:58:05 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:58:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
16:58:17 <ktk> s/seperately/separately/
16:58:17 <ktk> s/comnply/comply/
16:58:17 <ktk> s/unforseen/unforeseen/
16:58:17 <ktk> s/seomthing/something/
16:58:17 <ktk> s/soemthing/something/
16:58:20 <ktk> s/previosu/previous/
16:58:22 <ktk> s/assserted/asserted/
16:58:25 <ktk> s/resond/respond/
16:58:28 <ktk> s/implemenation/implementation/
16:58:37 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:58:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
17:03:59 <pchampin> RRSAgent, bye
17:03:59 <RRSAgent> I see no action items