– DRAFT –
RDF-star WG meeting

<ktk> Agenda:

Approval of last week’s minutes: 1

<pfps> look ok to me

<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes

<ktk> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<AZ> +1

<william-vw> +1

<niklasl> +1

<gtw> +1

<Enrico> +1

<ora> +0 (I was not there)

<tl> +1

<AndyS> +0.5 (partially present)

<olaf> +1

<fsasaki> +1

<pfps> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes

Identifying issues to solve before CR 2

ora: let's see what enrico just sent to the mailing list

<AndyS> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2025Oct/0004.html

enrico: seems like pierre-antoines doesn't have a grave disagreement

<AndyS> w3c/rdf-semantics#161

<gb> Pull Request 161 Remove Appendix B (by franconi) [ms:CR]

ora: that's in teh part that goes away. don't see that as a problem. anybody opposed to merging that?

enrico: so i'll merge

ora: okay

pfps: no! some things won't go away

enrico: but we are deleting the whole section on infinity

enrico: aha, indeed

enrico: i misread a line. will create a new PR, editorial

ora: what about PR #160

<gb> Issue 160 Clarify the rules around PrefixDecl in the grammar where PNAME_NS not unique (by JervenBolleman)

<gb> Pull Request 160 Fixes correctness of Appendix A (from issue #139) (by franconi) [ms:CR]

pfps: had a PR to change on entailment rules, but can't find it right now (Enrico and me and Dörthe agreeing, but fighting with GitHub)

[... some people discussing GitHub technicalities...]

enrico: let's assume we _will_ merge after we figure out how

ora: so in substance this is settled
… now let's go to issue #102

<gb> MERGED Pull Request 102 Create miniCore.md (by rat10)

<AndyS> w3c/rdf-semantics#102

<gb> Issue 102 Check if the interpolation lemma is still true given the new semantics (by franconi) [ms:CR] [propose closing] [spec:enhancement] [spec:substantive]

enrico: agreement with dörthe and pfps
… no merge to be done, just close the issue

ktk: is there still an open question?

enrico: we all believe that the interpolation lemma is true, we just need to agree on a written statement so this can be used as a stonewalled reference

<gb> Issue 162 Checking and updating Appendix C "Proofs of some results" (by franconi) [ms:CR]

james: wondering why it is that you don't want to record this stone walled truth, when it is only discussed on github?

enrico: this proof was not in the RDF 1.1 spec, so we feel that we shouldn't now

james: as a reader i would be curious

enrico: we can add it to appendix C

james: that would meet my expectations as a reader

<niklasl> Sounds reasonable to me.

ktk: findability would be much improved

enrico: will make a PR to that effect

ora: what else, where are we with IRI resolution?

andys: i need to get the RDF concepts text, still tbd
… did go through concepts doc. there are 4 issue that need to be resolved, only one looking problematic. will send email to pierre-antoine. concerns unstar-mapping

<AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#conformance

<Dominik_T> w3c/rdf-concepts#248

<gb> Issue 248 Resolve "Editor's notes" (by afs) [ms:CR]

andys: wrt conformance
… reference to "tentative levels" should be removed
… i see no action in the WG to follow through with it. but maybe niklas or pierre-Antoine can confirm

niklas: spontaneously i agree to remove it

ora: where is the unstar algorithm?

niklas: there is a document somewhere

<niklasl> w3c/rdf-interop

<niklasl> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-interop/spec/

tl: unstar should be included before CR

andys: can be linked to rdf-interop when not 404

<niklasl> Looks like it should be https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-12-interop/ but 404 for now

andys: would prefer to have a link to the document
… i will follow through on that

<AndyS> Editors note -- https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#conformance

<niklasl> Then there's https://niklasl.github.io/rdf-struct-patterns/spec/ which I've only discussed a bit with pchampin so far

ora: other editors notes?

andys: nothing needing discussion

ora: we have a bigger issue coming up in acknowledging people's contributions, but not critical for CR

<william-vw> ora do you have a link for the post?

ora: there was a post on linked in by Kurt Cagle misrepresenting RDF 1.2. i think we'll see more people talking about this work, and we all need to be vigilant and make sure to not let this work get misrepresented

<william-vw> thanks

<ktk> Post on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kurtcagle_reifications-update-activity-7380859705457377281-xrmH?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAAAAIu0Bc7FRJR3kKvggdnvulXNLj298V8U

ora: we should learn from those comments, maybe improve the primer, etc
… reification historically has been misunderstood. we need to be careful
… anything else?

<william-vw> note that there is a comment section on the page, so anyone is free to provide comments (and contradict some of the points he is making)

ktk: rdf concepts - pierre-antoine. w3c process would have removed gregg kellogg as editor because he died, but that is resolved, and he will stay there

ora: we will need to figure out how to acknowledge gregg's massive contributions. there is some version of the epub spec that defines how to handle this
… suggestions welcome

<niklasl> https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-33/#ack

ktk: rdf xml

ora: gregg was editor of rdf/xml spec, and now there is no editor. we asked jerven bolleman if he wants to step in, as his institute makes heavy use of it. first feedback was positive, but clarification needed

andys: what's the current state of the document?

niklasl: i may be able to help

<gb> Issue 65 update editor list (by domel) [spec:editorial]

<AndyS> w3c/rdf-xml#51

<gb> Issue 51 Support Named Graphs (by FabienGandon) [ms:future-work] [spec:new-feature]

andys: propose to close issue on named graphs, as it's future work
… opens a can of worms, as there is no one answer

ora: perfect for future living standard

andys: we can't just add features, we need input and community experience

ora: lets make it go away

enrico: new issue of some proofs that miss "and triple terms"

pfps: not much change needed

ktk: what would be next documents to tackle after if we go to CR?

andys: syntax
… schema, primer, structures and patterns
… the notes that we discussed

ora: primer would be very important

<niklasl> w3c/rdf-common#14

<gb> Issue 14 Enable Github pages on this repository to load by URL rather than local copies (by niklasl)

niklasl: implement linking instead of copying in all documents
… when will we go to CR with concepts

ora: to start horizontal review we need to make issues to record feedback, seems they are not created yet, so we'll have to do that next week
… any other business?
… no.
… adjourned