Meeting minutes
<pfps> short is beautiful
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's short minutes
<ora> +1
<niklasl> +0 (was not present)
<TallTed> +1
<ora> +1
<Dominik_T> +1
<AndyS> +1
<gtw> +1
<lisp> +1
<doerthe> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's short minutes
Identifying issues to solve before CR 2
ora: Any suggestions for topics? What's the status of editor's notes?
Andys: 1.1 test suites. There are four of them. Conformance levels is one. (We don't want to use "profiles".)
… One about unstar.
… One about contributors.
<gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/248
Ora: Acknowledgements will be tricky. And we want to recognize Gregg Kellogg's contributions.
… This doesn't have to happen right now.
AndyS: We have to point to rdf 1.2 test cases at some point.
… In section 2, it says "conformance levels above are tentative". There's a proposal for that.
ora. Is there a reason to change any of this at this point?
AndyS: If somebody wants to propose a change, otherwise no. We can suggest to remove these and give it a week.
Ora: Let's do exactly that.
AndyS: I'll make a PR for that and give it a week.
ora: And unstar?
AndyS: We need to wait until Pierre-Antoine is back from TPAC.
ora: We'll take that next week then. That's all about Editor's Notes for now.
ora: Is w3c/
<gb> Issue 163 Spurious normative dependencies (by pchampin) [ms:CR] [needs discussion]
<pfps> one moment
pfps: The question is whether these should be normative or not.
… e.g. Semantics depends upon Schema; that might be non-normative. Is there any problem with these being normative? The one on Turtle seems so, schema maybe not.
AndyS: Is the normative Turtle dependency actually there (apart from in the reference)?
pfps: In section 4, some paragraphs down. It mentions Turtle, uses prefixes.
pfps: There is Turtle in normative sections; not just examples.
… The axiomatic triples for instance.
ora: That is definitely normative. But is there any problem with having this normative?
pfps: No, not if we'll have Turtle, etc. advancing to CR soon.
… I'll make a PR to propose closing.
ora: And we have w3c/
<gb> Issue 73 IRI resolution requirements (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [needs discussion] [spec:substantive]
AndyS: No more progress yet.
pfps: what's happening with the trackers?
ora: We've heard nothing back yet.
ora: There is still work to be done. What's the full scope? Documents we have not yet dicussed.
… For example, status of the SPARQL documents?
Andys: We need to work out what is possible to do with the time we have left. That is on the agenda for tomorrow. E.g. EXISTS.
olaf: There are a bunch of smaller formalization issues for SPARQL. They can be seen as editorial, but fix things to make them formal.
ora: Our work isn't done until SPARQL is done. Is there something we can help out with?
olaf: I don't think so, at least for the issues I've opened. Not substantial work, but needs some time.
ora: Let's put those on our list, so we're aware of what needs to be done.
ora: I got an email from Jerven, replying that he can be an Editor for the RDF/XML spec.
ora: Then we have things that are Notes; we eventually want to have them done as well.
AndyS: The SHACL documents are up for general review. This WG has had a request to review them.
… The EXISTS is at risk, that could be put as a note in the SHACL documents for SPARQL.
ora: There is a new rule mechanism; can you talk about that AndyS?
AndyS: We can talk about that.
ora: Let's close the official meeting and discuss.