16:58:55 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star 16:58:59 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/11/20-rdf-star-irc 16:59:01 meeting: RDF-star WG meeting 16:59:15 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e5234c80-4c06-4c6b-af43-c78a1dbd390a/20251120T120000/ 16:59:16 clear agenda 16:59:16 agenda+ Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/11/13-rdf-star-minutes.html -> 2 https://www.w3.org/2025/11/11-rdf-star-minutes.html 16:59:16 agenda+ Review of open actions, available at -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3 16:59:17 agenda+ Updates from the SPARQL TF 16:59:18 agenda+ Identifying issues to solve before CR -> 4 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/8 17:00:15 present+ 17:00:20 olaf has joined #rdf-star 17:00:22 present+ 17:00:24 present+ 17:01:04 present+ 17:01:17 present+ 17:01:26 present+ 17:01:31 regrets+ AZ, fsasaki 17:02:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/20-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 17:02:09 scribe+ 17:02:10 present+ 17:02:26 chair: ktk 17:02:51 Souri has joined #rdf-star 17:02:52 Zakim, open issue 1 17:02:52 I don't understand 'open issue 1', ktk 17:02:57 present+ 17:02:58 Zakim, open item 1 17:02:58 agendum 1 -- Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/11/13-rdf-star-minutes.html -> 2 https://www.w3.org/2025/11/11-rdf-star-minutes.html -- taken up [from 17:03:01 ... agendabot] 17:03:05 present+ 17:03:27 tl has joined #rdf-star 17:03:34 present+ 17:03:37 minutes look good, as far as I can tell 17:03:37 ktk: two minutes; one from last week, and one from TPAC 17:03:48 q+ 17:04:15 pchampin: RSSAgent was disconnected for a few minutes during the TPAC meeting. I copied local irc log and added what was missing. 17:04:22 ... already fixed in minutes that are published. 17:04:24 +1 approve minutes 17:04:24 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/11/13-rdf-star-minutes.html 17:04:26 q+ 17:04:27 ack pchampin 17:04:49 AndyS: after this can we get insight from pchampin and ktk about TPAC? 17:04:54 ack me 17:04:56 +! 17:05:00 +1 17:05:03 +1 17:05:09 s/+!/+1/ 17:05:09 PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes (TPAC & regular) 17:05:11 +1 17:05:12 +1 17:05:12 there was some background noise on the call 17:05:18 s/was/is/ 17:05:19 +1 17:05:19 next Thursday is US Thanksgiving ... question of whether meeting will have enough international attendance 17:05:24 doerthe has joined #rdf-star 17:05:30 present+ 17:05:44 +1 17:05:50 I expect not to be available next week 17:05:57 enrico has joined #rdf-star 17:06:01 +0 wasn't there 17:06:07 RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes (TPAC & regular) 17:06:16 ... so I can't be alternative scribe 17:06:54 pchampin: TPAC overall was really good.. Interesting discussions. Very few from this WG. 17:07:11 ... WG meeting was mostly for benefit of observers. Lots of questions. ora gave presentation on where we are. 17:07:20 ... discussed status of SPARQL. 17:07:48 ... we had briefly two discussion topics focused on next steps. One was idea about changing the basic [?] algorithm. 17:08:03 ... Enrico had point about improving narrative around propositions in Primer. 17:08:35 lisp has joined #rdf-star 17:08:46 present+ 17:08:57 ktk: nice to have people from outside the WG. 17:09:49 ... highlight was verified credential group. briefly talked to Manu Sporny. Presented about California drivers license using verified credentials in QR code. 17:10:22 TallTed: interesting part from my perspective is QR code encapsulates an encrypted/signed data that is on front of license. 17:11:04 ... this is associated with TrueAge project with is verifiable credentials-based. Need to present some hardcode proof abotu identity on first visit. Then streamlined afterwards. 17:11:19 ... rolled out in millions of stores needing to check IDs. 17:11:58 ... expected to recognize lots of forms of IDs. This is benefiting them in a big way. Bringing RDF into usage in places that nobody expected in these numbers. 17:12:16 ... 100M instances of these stores. 50M drivers license in CA. Things in surprising places. 17:12:23 q+ 17:12:35 ktk: TruAge is by whom? 17:12:43 TallTed: the convenience stores themselves. 17:12:47 Connexxus 17:13:00 ktk: you don't disclose your birthdate, just prove you are above the threshold. 17:13:17 ... "selective disclosure". 17:13:17 ... lots of use-cases. 17:13:46 ... you can scan QR code on phone. They can revoke licenses as well. 17:14:32 q? 17:15:00 pchampin: verifiable credentials are JSON-LD signed documents. QR codes are CBOR-LD. Not yet a spec, but on charter for JSON-LD WG. 17:15:03 olaf has joined #rdf-star 17:15:10 ... RDF quads in compact form in limited space for QR code. 17:15:12 present+ 17:15:13 https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-canon/ 17:15:21 ... makes use of RDF canonicalization. 17:15:41 ... the way digital signatures are added to JSON-LD document is in theory generalizable to other documents. 17:15:45 ... not just VC format. 17:16:01 ... Ivan H has done some experiments on other formats. 17:16:10 https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/ca-dmv-wallet/truage/ 17:16:10 https://www.mytruage.org/about/faq 17:16:11 https://www.google.com/search?q=truage+qrcode 17:16:29 ... Web of Things WG. Using RDF and JSON-LD to provide generic descriptions of IoT devices. Lot of interest in what the group presented. 17:16:47 ... Retail store association behind TrueAge behind Web of Things. 17:16:57 ... demo on automated till interacting with connected objects. 17:17:08 ack pchampin 17:17:22 ktk: next week. Thanksgiving? 17:17:39 I won't be here next week. 17:18:17 I'm actually at risk for next week, though that's not thanksgiving related 17:18:19 ... don't remember what we did last year. 17:18:24 TallTed: we did skip last year. 17:18:31 ... ora will also probably be out. 17:18:43 ktk: I'm in a tough timezone. 17:18:50 ... propose we skip next week. 17:19:05 ... OK. Skip next week. 17:19:11 1? 17:19:13 q? 17:19:18 Zakim, next item 17:19:18 agendum 2 -- Review of open actions, available at -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3 -- taken up [from agendabot] 17:19:51 q+ 17:19:52 enrico has joined #rdf-star 17:19:57 ktk: any updates from pchampin or niklasl on issues? 17:20:03 niklasl: not any update on my note. waiting for feedback. 17:20:03 Present+ 17:20:13 q+ 17:20:16 ktk: from the group? or someone in particular? 17:20:32 niklasl: the group. Ted commented it should be moved to another repository. 17:20:42 q? 17:20:46 ack niklasl 17:20:58 pchampin: #179 can be closed. 17:20:59 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/179 -> Action 179 find a way to extract a dependency graph of our specs (on pchampin) due 2025-09-25 17:21:06 ... haven't updated the graph yet. 17:21:37 enrico has joined #rdf-star 17:21:38 ... #55 still pending. will discuss later on, but need group decision to publish interop. 17:21:42 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/55 -> Action 55 set up echidna in all RDF&SPARQL WG GH repositories (on pchampin) due 27 Apr 2023 17:21:43 q? 17:21:45 ack pchampin 17:21:46 Present+ 17:21:56 Zakim, next item 17:21:56 agendum 3 -- Updates from the SPARQL TF -- taken up [from agendabot] 17:22:19 AndyS: look at the rest of the GH board? 17:22:25 ktk: that is after this topic. 17:22:53 AndyS: taskforce in last meeting had discussion about whether it would be useful to take WG telecon time as things wind down in other documents. 17:23:02 ... as we are waiting for review to come in. 17:23:11 ... it would be useful to bring things to wider group attention. 17:23:20 ... not substitue for the TF meetings which are more detailed discussions. 17:23:28 ... good to bring things back to this group for awareness. 17:23:53 ... There are a few issues that might be of interest. Olaf leading work on EXISTS. 17:24:14 ... There is a discussion of VERSIONs in SPARQL. Whether to put versioning in SPARQL namespace document. 17:24:28 ... Consequences on details how it impacts service description. 17:24:47 ... Finishing up stuff on triple terms. Making sure all material is in document. Whether things should be sortable/comparable. 17:25:01 ktk: Ones interested could have a look at sparql repo? 17:25:27 olaf: Discussion came up yesterday might be something. Maybe we can first discuss in the group. Things related to property paths. 17:25:37 AndyS: I think that was more of a question. 17:26:06 ... Final comment I'd make is we are going to have to prioritize. Not everything possible in the WG timescale. Identify issues that are necessary to address. 17:26:18 ... maybe push things out into the maintenance/new features phase. 17:26:41 ... We need to show progress before we could justify any extension for SPARQL. 17:26:45 enrico has joined #rdf-star 17:26:53 Present+ 17:26:55 ktk: link to repo? 17:26:57 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/pulls 17:27:21 ktk: that was one question at TPAC. What is status of SPARQL? 17:27:41 AndyS: W3C process tends to encourage getting review. 17:28:14 ... we need to get through taking in incoming. Some of the things we're getting are just questions. 17:28:27 ... we've got to balance with making PRs. 17:28:51 ... then the reviewing. Particularly design review. Looking at PRs. Across documents, not just specific areas of the change. 17:29:05 q? 17:29:15 Zakim, next item 17:29:15 agendum 4 -- Identifying issues to solve before CR -> 4 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/8 -- taken up [from agendabot] 17:29:45 ktk: I was working on making the request for reviews from i18n, privacy, security, accessibility. 17:30:02 ... I realized we might have an issue. In RDF Schema, there is no privacy/security section. 17:30:15 ... reviews for that say don't submit without those. Is this something we have to add? 17:30:23 ... In Schema we did it. 17:30:40 q+ 17:31:01 pchampin: the document that is missing them is Schema, right? 17:31:17 ... not part of first batch sending for review. 17:31:34 ktk: we had Concepts, Semantics, ... 17:31:37 pchampin: and N-Triples. 17:31:46 ktk: I will have to adjust that. 17:31:51 q+ 17:32:01 pchampin: That is going to be an issue soon. 17:32:20 ... We probably want to solve that. 17:32:34 ... low hanging fruit would be to refer to corresponding sections in Concepts. 17:32:43 q- 17:32:48 ... something similar in JSON-LD. Most considerations in JSON-LD syntax document. API points to that. 17:33:00 https://w3c.github.io/rdf-semantics/spec/#privacy 17:33:02 ktk: that's what Semantics did. 17:33:23 pchampin: it's a fair thing to do. Don't think there are specific security or privacy considerations to Schema that do not apply to RDF in general. 17:33:35 ... need to address, but we have an easy way out. 17:33:47 ktk: create an issue in Schema? 17:33:53 ... I will do that. 17:34:26 ktk: proposal to close "IRI resolution". 17:34:40 AndyS: I checked N-Triples, -Quads, TriG. Text has been updated to something reasonable. 17:34:50 ... action could be closed for line items 1 and 2. 17:34:54 q? 17:35:03 ack pchampin 17:35:28 +1 to close them 17:35:33 ktk: propose we close them. 17:35:38 q? 17:35:42 AndyS: will do it after the meeting. 17:35:57 AndyS: on the editors notes one, there is a related PR. #256. Talked about last week. 17:35:57 Issue 256 not found 17:36:10 ... removes the editors note about conformance. Discussion had stopped. 17:36:23 ... I assume that means it's decided. Will merge unless I hear otherwise. 17:36:33 ... line item 4. 17:36:40 ... does not close line item 4. Three others to do. 17:36:44 ... one of which is interop. 17:36:59 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/12/04-rdf-star-minutes.html 17:37:00 ... Editing needs to be done when Interop is available to be linked. 17:37:01 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/256 17:37:02 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/256 -> Pull Request 256 Remove editor's note about conformance levels (by afs) 17:37:06 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/20-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 17:37:10 q+ 17:37:15 q+ 17:37:34 pchampin: regarding Interop, I believe we discussed that earlier. Could not find a resolution. 17:37:41 ... required to initiate first publication. 17:38:02 ... to summarize, I think we can publish it as FPWD. Incomplete, but that's why it's a draft. 17:38:10 ... non-normatively referring to it, so that's sufficient. 17:38:22 ... I propose we make a resolution to publish RDF Interop as FPWD. 17:38:51 ktk: Can do that later today. 17:38:51 ack pchampin 17:39:36 sound issues 17:39:52 i'm about line item 5 17:40:25 PROPOSAL: Publish RDF Interop as FPWD 17:40:30 +1 17:40:32 +1 17:40:34 +1 17:40:34 +1 17:40:36 +1 17:40:36 +1 (I have a naming issue but that should'nt block) 17:40:38 +1 17:40:40 +1 17:40:43 +1 17:40:44 +1 17:40:49 +0 17:41:05 s/naming/term choice/ 17:41:19 RESOLUTION: Publish RDF Interop as FPWD 17:41:25 s/should'nt/shouldn't/ 17:41:56 line item 5 depends on whether Semantics is normative wrt what Schema vocabulary is of interest or Schema is, historically it has been Schema but that makes a normative dependency from Semantics to Schema 17:41:59 pfps: Line item 5 is about whether semantics should depend normatively on Schema. 17:42:13 ... historically it's been Schema that has been normative. 17:42:22 ... issue is whether that's a good idea. Should it be changed? 17:42:28 ... that is a WG decision. 17:42:36 ack pfps 17:42:39 ktk: Opinions on that? 17:42:45 AndyS: it's marked "proposed closing". 17:42:56 pfps: that was before pchampin ... [?] 17:43:07 pfps: I marked for closing. pchampin said something afterwards. 17:43:16 ... I'll take that tag off. 17:43:17 q+ 17:43:59 pchampin: The RDF Schema defines the vocab. RDF Semantics provides some formal interpretations of the terms. Those terms have consequences as inferences. 17:44:02 ... two sides of same coin. 17:44:18 I'm voting conservatie on this - keep Schema normative - a change to informative should result in lots of informative marks in Schema 17:44:34 ... If somebody has a problem with inconsistency between prose and formal description. I would be more comfortable with formal description having precedence. 17:44:48 ... other reason is we're trying to publish semantics before schema. 17:45:10 ... having dependency other way around would slow process. Not a good reason by itself, but other reason is a good one. This strengthens. 17:45:22 q? 17:45:24 ack pchampin 17:46:23 ktk: shall we vote about it? pfps, WG decision would take the form of a vote? 17:46:24 pfps: yes. 17:46:37 pfps: I'll write something which would make the change. 17:46:49 q+to talk about the turtle dependency after the proposal 17:46:57 PROPOSED: Make the RDF Schema document informative wrt what vocabulary is of interest and what is meaning is. 17:47:12 q+ 17:47:27 s/is meaning/its meaning/ 17:47:31 AndyS: want to talk about Turtle, not Schema. After proposal. 17:47:53 pchampin: I have an issue with pfps' proposal. Seems to apply to Schema as a document. Not what I was suggesting. 17:48:04 ... not suggestion to make Schema a non-normative document. 17:48:08 q+ 17:48:11 ... suggesting to not normatively depend on it. 17:48:15 ack pchampin 17:48:23 ack pfps 17:48:34 pfps: problem with that is we have 2 normative documents as to Schema. There are Semantics and Schema. Both define things. 17:48:41 ... which is more authoratative? 17:48:49 ... Could keep Schema normative and say if conflict, defer to Semantics. 17:48:55 pchampin: that's what I was suggesting. 17:49:05 AndyS: exact wording of proposal I read as making whole of Schema a Note. 17:49:12 pfps: would rip out all normative stuff in Schema. 17:49:16 ack pchampin 17:49:22 AndyS: framing of proposal would make it a non-normative document. 17:49:39 pfps: what would be a smaller step to remove normative link from semantics to schema? 17:49:52 enrico has joined #rdf-star 17:49:52 AndyS: I thought idea of saying semantics document is authoratative would be sufficient. 17:49:59 Present+ 17:50:14 pfps: somebody else needs to craft that proposal. 17:50:59 pchampin: if anything, Schema should normatively refer to Semantics. 17:51:11 q+ to say that there needs to be a conflict-resolution statement 17:51:37 pfps: as long as there's conflict resolution statement added, that would work for me. 17:52:16 looks good 17:52:17 PROPOSAL: change RDF-Semantics to *non-normatively* refer to RDF-Schema; RDF-Schema should then normatively refer to RDF-Semantics (giving precedence to RDF-Semantics in case of conflict) 17:52:20 +1 17:52:20 +1 17:52:21 +1 17:52:23 +1 17:52:25 +1 17:52:25 +1 17:52:25 +0.5 17:52:26 +1 17:52:26 +1 17:52:28 +1 17:52:28 +1 17:52:38 +1 17:53:00 RESOLUTION: change RDF-Semantics to *non-normatively* refer to RDF-Schema; RDF-Schema should then normatively refer to RDF-Semantics (giving precedence to RDF-Semantics in case of conflict) 17:53:27 pfps: when do the notes/issues saying it was discussed show up? afterwards? 17:53:29 pchampin: yes. 17:53:38 pfps: not in issue yet, but expect to see it soon. 17:53:47 pchampin: I may need to patch minutes. Will do what is needed. 17:54:03 q? 17:54:06 ack pfps 17:54:06 pfps, you wanted to say that there needs to be a conflict-resolution statement 17:54:07 RRSAgent, make minutes 17:54:08 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/20-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin 17:54:26 AndyS: relationship between semantics and turtle. I don't mind which way it's decided. 17:54:44 ... if turtle suddenly changed, it wouldn't really change semantics. 17:55:33 ktk: what do you propose? we should vote for that? 17:55:39 AndyS: whatever the editor wants. 17:55:57 pfps: I'm uncomfortable making link non-normative. In places where the semantics is defined. Includes turtle constructs. 17:56:06 ... if you don't define how turtle works, you can't understand definitions. 17:56:29 ... little bits of turtle. not a lot of it, but queries are included, so can't just include n-triples. 17:56:33 ... prefixednames. 17:56:39 s/if you don't define/if you don't understand 17:56:44 s/queries/curies/ 17:57:08 pfps: I am uncomfortable making the link non-normative. 17:57:23 ... it is pushing the limit. Don't want to have somebody come back to say we have to change this. 17:57:52 q? 17:57:54 ack AndyS 17:57:54 AndyS, you wanted to talk about the turtle dependency after the proposal 17:58:58 AndyS: propose cancelling next week's SPARQL TF meeting. 17:59:07 pfps has left #rdf-star 17:59:58 i| I was working on|subtopic: No security & privacy considerations in RDF-Schema 18:00:53 olaf has left #rdf-star 18:01:03 i|proposal to close "IRI resolution"|subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/issues/73 and https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/89 18:01:41 i|on the editors notes one|subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/248 18:02:09 i|Line item 5 is about|subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/163 18:02:25 RRSAgent, make minutes 18:02:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/20-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin regrets+ ora