Meeting minutes
Approval of last week’s minutes: 1
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes from two weeks ago
<niklasl> +1
<pfps> +1
<ktk> +1
<AndyS> +1
<lisp> +1
<gtw> +1
<ora> 0
<tl> +1
<Dominik_T7> +1
<TallTed> +1
<Souri> +1
<pchampin> +1
<j22> 0
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes from two weeks ago
Review of open actions, available at 2
pchampin: is setting echidna, there were questions about why this a note instead of rec. pchampin wrote an introduction that is now a PR. This PR has been sent to the team, this might need merging before permission to publish is granted
niklasl: no progress on issue #150
<gb> Action 150 Create note on triple term owlification (on niklasl) due 2025-03-07
Horizontal Reviews Tracking 3 4 5
<pfps> so how we just wait?
ktk: wrote a script to help submit 17+ documents. Some have been submitted as well. Each has an issue. pchampin: we don't need now to go through them right now. Nothing has gone through yet.
ACTION: pchampin to import language from rdf-canon into rdf-concepts about the complexity of graph processing
<gb> Created action #184
pchampin: while little changed regarding internationalization, last review was 10 years ago and viewpoints might have changed.
Identifying issues to solve before CR 6
AndyS: asks if denial of service attacks is more of a concern for security and privacy affairs for all standards or if this is specific for RDF1.2/SPARQL. pchampin: yes more consideration to security normal now (and that is a good thing)
future note: ask for (draft) security review earlier in the process
pfps: notes that this might be risky in its own way as well.
ora: hopes that this would at least catch obvious (to security team) issues earlier.
<pchampin> and also it is sometimes easier to work incrementally for them
TallTed: these are notes, for implementers and users to consider. Security is a general consideration section
profile parameter
This is about w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 76 Add profile parameter (by pchampin) [ms:CR]
pchampin: has not paid much attention to this PR recently. Has work outstanding and what needs to be done.
Issue 248 Resolve "Editor's notes" (by afs) [ms:CR]
Is the editors note about how to reference 1.2 test cases. How to note in the concepts document that these test cases exists and can be used.
AndyS: it should be reasonable to point to the suite of documents of conformance tests
AndyS: 1.1. did not have a link to any tests
<pchampin> sounds reasonable
ACTION: AndyS: PR to just remove the note referencing 1.2 test cases.
<gb> Created action #185
Recognizing members of the task force, decided to do so at the end
the note about "unstar" is supposed to have link to the interop document
issues that can be closed
Issue w3c/rdf-concepts#79 , w3c/rdf-n-triples#78 and w3c/rdf-n-quads#82 can be closed
while w3c/rdf-concepts#46 remains open
<gb> Issue 46 Proposal: rename errata-related labels in all repositories (by pchampin)
end of year schedule
ora: proposal to skip Thursday 25th and January 1st
skipping accepted
skipping accepted as no objections
AndyS: are we ok for the 18th? ora: and ktk: will be available.
18th will not be skipped (no one asked to)
AOB
AndyS: would like to have a SPARQL-TF meeting and hopes to have a meeting soon. Especially around critical issues. ora: if needed issues can be brought to the rdf-wg. AndyS issues that are significantly important should be done by wg.
ora: hopes that the sparql-tf brings things to wg that are easily decidable for the wg. AndyS hopes more people join tf meetings for in-depth discussions
Issue 2 Decide names and IRIs for type and constituent properties of basic-encoded triple terms (by niklasl)
pchampin would like to have the groups opinion if these "unstar" vocabulary terms should be outside of the rdf namespace.
<AndyS> See also PR on rdf.ttl, rdfs.ttl : w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 70 Define terms for basic RDF 1.2 (by niklasl)
pchampin: this vocabulary should not be used in the wild
pchampin: notion of reserved namespace might be controversial.
pfps: this will show up in the wild, as people might have run the algorithm and then publish the data. AndyS notes that downcasting is good. Problem might be accidental inclusion in RDF1.2-full graphs, that can lead to issues
ora: can't protect people from their own mistakes. we can help people notice them more easily
pchampin: Any use of the rdf-basic properties should highlight to users that the vocabulary is intended to be used to create rdf-full.
pfps: prefers not to have this split.
niklasl: separation might mean that editors and tools do not show these per default.
AndyS if note is not normative, then it does not need to go into the RDF namespace
There is an example of a non-normative term in the rdf namespace today.
ora: do we need to vote on this?
<tl> strawpoll maybe?
niklasl did anyone have issues with the similar JSON-LD terms?
<ora> STRAWPOLL: Use separate namespace for triple-term component properties defined in rdf-interop
<ora> 0
<tl> -1
<pfps> -1
<enrico> +0
<doerthe> 0
<lisp> -1
<Souri> 0
<ktk> 0
<AndyS> +0
<j22> -1
<gtw> +0
<pchampin> +1
<Dominik_T7> 0
<niklasl> +0.1
AndyS notes that the given example of non-normative use in rdf namespace is not accurate, it is normative