Meeting minutes
Approval of last week’s minutes: 1
ora: comments about last week's minutes?
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes
<ora> +1
<ktk> +0
<fsasaki> +1
<olaf> +1
<niklasl> +1
<AndyS> +1
<lisp> +1
<Dominik_T> +1
<j22> +1
<gtw> +1
<enrico> +0
<pfps> +1
<pchampin> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes
Review of open actions, available at 2
ora: I haven't completed my actions
… but promise that I will work on them over the (upcoming) holidays
pchampin: RDF-INTEROP is published
… Echidna is set up for it
ora: Can we close this action?
pchampin: Let's keep it open until we know that Echidna runs correctly once we merge a PR
niklasl: I have updated the text to use the term for INTEROP
Identifying issues to solve before CR 3
ora: okay, let people comment on the action
ora: What did we hear from the TAG?
pchampin: I got a message from Sarven a minute before this call.
… there are responses on the horizontal review issues
<pchampin> w3ctag/
<gb> Issue 1161 WG New Spec: RDF 1.2 N-Triples (by pchampin) [Review type: horizontal review] [Resolution: ambivalent]
pchampin: I haven't looked at the issues in detail yet
… but I know that the TAG is concerned with the version announcement
… they don't intent to block anything
<pchampin> w3ctag/
<gb> Issue 1159 WG New Spec: RDF 1.2 Concepts and Abstract Data Model (by pchampin) [Review type: horizontal review] [Resolution: satisfied with concerns]
pchampin: Sarven's message contains some advice on what the TAG thinks we should do.
… The expectation is that we clarify how the version announcement should be used.
… because it has the potential to break some uses of RDF
ora: Should we add some language to the spec or just let this go?
pchampin: Additional language won't hurt?
ora: Will it help?
<gtw> N-Triples could never be "just concatenated". :\
pchampin: It will help the TAG ;-)
AndyS: Where is the comment about the media type not changing?
pchampin: I had some conversations with Sarven and (?)
… they see that we consider both options
AndyS: You can ask them about CSS versioning.
… Regarding declaring version, we could note in Concepts that, at the moment,
… things are stacked. You should choose the highest version.
ora: Good idea.
ktk: The bnode argument should be used.
ora: Regarding the bnode issue, I have many people made the case that you can just split and concatenate. They don't think about the bnodes!
ora: Volunteers to add some language to Concepts?
AndyS: Yes, me. It should be only one sentence.
ora: What about implementation reports?
<csarven> pchampin: We had two calls on this topic, minutes: 1) https://
<csarven> ^ Some background on other formats.. and why they are not exactly comparable to this situation.
<csarven> (Sorry to drive-by share text.. can't join.. :)
ora: What's the rule? We need two implementations, right?
pchampin: We need two independent implementations for every feature.
… So, in theory, we may have only incomplete implementation.
ora: For each *new* feature?
pchampin: The way it is measured is that the tests pass.
ktk: What does "feature" mean?
TallTed: The purpose is to show that every feature, as defined in the spec, can indeed be implemented.
pchampin: In terms of tests, we can reuse from the RDF-star CG
… We also discussed the EARL reports.
AndyS: Do we know two people who can cover the semantics tests?
… They seem to have been broken since 6 months.
… Apparently, none is running them.
… Who has implementations for semantics tests?
ora: Are you saying these are not serious things?
AndyS: The fix is trivial. It just shows that none is running the tests.
doerthe: I could try to implement something (in January) to be able to run these test.
pchampin: Corese implements the specs and they are currently considering the tests.
… They may not have come to the semantics test, but we can count on them to get to it.
ora: Anything else to discuss regarding getting to CR?
<ktk> ad-freiburg/
ktk: QLever team build this. It is not specific to QLever.
… It is a test *suite* to run the tests.
AndyS: Good to see that.
<pchampin> I also have one for Sophia, but I need to publish the code, though
AndyS: We (with Thomas and Ruben) are working on the SPARQL tests.
ora: Other business then?
AndyS: Back to TAG response
… (reading comment from the GitHub issue)
… "accidentally"
pchampin: Looks like a misunderstanding.
ora: Any "RDF-star" feature would mean new details in the synatx, which would break old stuff.
AndyS: Text direction as well.
pchampin: Arguably, text direction could be ambiguous.
… Turtle grammar allows for something.
<AndyS> Turtle 1.1: [144s] LANGTAG ::= '@' [a-zA-Z]+ ('-' [a-zA-Z0-9]+)*
pchampin: RDF 1.1 Turtle parser can be expected to still parse it and assume it is a language tag. The grammar allows that.
AndyS: That's not true.
… We are save.
pchampin: Right, I was wrong.
ora: Should we tell TAG this?
… I think we should.
… In addition, should we have some language in the spec, because it may not be obvious to the readers.
AndyS: There is a sentence that kinda covers that.
pchampin: Two things:
… 1) the abstract syntax extends the 1.1 syntax and 2) every concrete syntax extends its 1.1 version
… We can prep some boilerplate that we can use in all syntax-related specs.
… Maybe we should add something in the Changes section.
… I can prepare something.
AndyS: That's an argument for Trig, Turtle, etc, but RDF/XML is different.
… I am not sure what the spec says.
… The processing algorithm might not catch it.
ora: We should check.
… And put some additional language about it in the RDF/XML spec.
<j22> I can open an issue on the rdf/xml to make sure that this is ok
ora: We didn't change the syntax of XML.
… yes, j22, please open an issue
ora: Anyhting else?
Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
<j22> I opened w3c/
<gb> Issue 77 Ensure that the attributes and elements do not cause issues for rdf/xml 1.0/1.1 (by JervenBolleman)
<j22> if you want to trust a good bunchmark have a validated LDBC one
<j22> Want to note that due to high compliance to standards in rdf/sparql world that it is easy to actually benchmark your own workload on many endpoints.