Meeting minutes
Approval of last week’s minutes: 1
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes?
<ora> +1
<AndyS> +1
<gtw> +1
<TallTed> +1
<doerthe> +1
<ktk> +0 (absent)
<niklasl> +1
<lisp> +1
<tl> +0 (absent)
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes?
Dependency graph of our specs 2
ora: we discussed this in the chair meeting, pa made a dependency diagram of our specs
AndyS: this raises the questions: in which way should be read the spec?
ora: There is one arrow which produced circles
<niklasl> w3c/
<gb> Issue 250 Cyclic dependency between Concepts and Semantics (by pchampin)
AndyS: there is already a PR that fixes it
… w3c/
<AndyS> w3c/
<gb> MERGED Pull Request 251 remove normative dependency to Semantics (by pchampin)
ora: is there an actual PR?
AndyS: yes, w3c/
<lisp> the same gpt conversation that generated the detail graphs also include its reading of the documents : https://
ora: so the normative dependency from concepts to semantics is removed, that serves the purpose
ktk: I think AndyS is right, that we should give some guidance to help people how to read the spec
<niklasl> Tangential, this is a good approach to write documentation (for different purposes): https://
ora: Maybe the dependency graph can serve as a landing page. I think it is best to start with the primer.
ora: I think we are OK with the normative dependencies now
TallTed: There were 3 issues flagged with the dependency graph and only one of these is solved.
… maybe it is only the image?
ora: so the arrow from semantics to concepts is removed? But then there is still a cycle, right?
… or did I misunderstand that?
<niklasl> See https://
ora: did the arrow from semantics to concepts was removed?
<niklasl> Nothing to semantics now in https://
AndyS: I think it is not possible to break the cycle. The connection from concepts to semantics is rather weak, the link is just that the semantics is defined in semantics
ktk: so the solution is that there is not connection from concepts, right?
niklasl: the other dependency is removed, we should be fine
ktk: it is strange that n-triples depends on turtle, but I think that was for historical reasons
ora: I think that is the case and it can be explained
… is it right that TriG does not depend on turtle?
<niklasl> This is the script PA made to do the analysis: https://
AndyS: yes, there can be still non normative dependencies
ora: I think there are no technical problems, no cycles, so we can go on.
Review of open actions, available at 3
ora: my task is done, but there is still an echidna issue
ktk: line item 1 and 2 can be closed
ora: where are we with the owlification thing?
Horizontal Reviews, last feedback on questionaire 4 5
niklasl: I still need to get some feedback from pa, but everyone can already review, you find it in my repo
ora: can we close the dependency graph issue
ktk: I would like to wait for pa
<AndyS> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 252 complete description of the main changes (by pchampin)
AndyS: I think that issue #183 can be merged, but we need to wait for pa
<gb> Action 183 add a summary of the main changes since RDF 1.1 in rdf-concepts (on pchampin) due 2025-10-23
Identifying issues to solve before CR 6
ora: we discussed in the chair's meeting that we will submit the questionnaire for all documents together and not separately (agendum 4)
ktk: we should decide which document tackle next, turtle?
<AndyS> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 255 RDF Reference IRI (by afs)
AndyS: I made the PR w3c/
… which fixes issues #223 and #169
<gb> Issue 223 not found
<gb> CLOSED Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [ms:CR]
AndyS: issues w3c/
<gb> Issue 223 RDF Reference IRI (by afs) [ms:CR]
<gb> Issue 169 Relative IRI Reference should bind to the irelative-ref production (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
ktk: .. and the turtle issue can be addressed afterwards?
AndyS: yes
tl: AndyS, could you explain the relationship of the PR and the issue?
AndyS: It changes a production rule in the grammar
tl: but how does it relate to 169?
AndyS: are you looking at the correct 169?
tl: then it is clear, sorry
ktk: anything else to discuss?
ora: so turtle is what we tackle next, but also the other syntax specs
… does the fact that there is nothing on rdf/XML on the list that everything is fixed there?
<niklasl> +1 that's my recollection too
AndyS: I think things are fixed there
ora: does that mean that it is ready to go?
ora: we only need to contact jervan
<ktk> https://
doerthe: the old spec already contained a part where the interpolation lemma was in it.
… I will add it there
<ktk> https://
ltk: we could discuss/review https://
ora: what about the missalignment of prefix handling, where are we there?
AndyS: I don't remember
ora: there are a couple of issues about turtle, what do we do with these?
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 109 Ambiguous wording in section 2.11.1 Annotation Syntax (by jaw111) [spec:bug] [spec:editorial]
<niklasl> It
<niklasl> It's labelled editorial, which seems correct (it's about possible clarification).
ktk: could we check whether this issue needs our attention? w3c/
ora: I think we only need to add some clarifying text to fix it, do we think the text is needed?
AndyS: we cannot satisfy every single reader, so we have to be careful here
ora: I suggest to close the issue
TallTed: it might be that the person who posted it is not the only one having the problem
ora: I propose that I review and then report
TallTed: the problem comes from the annotation syntax and its text about reifiedTriple production, so I propose to rewrite the text, I will have a look whether I can come up with an improvement
ktk: most issues are on SPARQL, once the SPARQL spec is ready many issues here will be solved
<Dominik_T> to remember w3c/
<gb> Issue 65 update editor list (by domel) [spec:editorial]
<ktk> s/missunderstandings/misunderstandings/