Meeting minutes
<pfps> github appears to be having problems.
Approval of last week’s minutes: 1
<pfps> minutes look acceptable to me
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes
<niklasl> +1
<pfps> +1
<Dominik_T> +1
<fsasaki> +1
<enrico> +1
<olaf> +1
<pchampin> +1
<ora> +0 (regrets)
<gtw> +1
<ktk> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes
Horizontal Reviews Tracking 2 3 4
<TallTed> +1
pa: horizontal review of concepts, semantics, n-triples
… on non-closed tracking issues, I reached out to groups
… accessibility said that we do not have issues, I asked them to close them
… i18n has raised about rdf concepts to be more explicit to be more explicit about bidi text
… the TAG closed the issue on rdf semantics
… no pending PRs on concepts. and remark on multiple versions (on turtle)
… I will go back to Sarven to see if our responses are ok
… privacy: no remarks
… security: has invited the chairs and me to the next security IG meeting to give a summary, so they can speed up the review
… so moving forward, horizontal reviews will be closed in a few weeks
ora: so after that, what are next steps for us?
pa: we create a snapshot of CR docs and make a transition request
… we go through the team, disable ecidna
… once the CRs are published, we announce them, call for implementations
… need evidence of 2 implementations
… AC vote will take 28 days
… may be in parallel or before, tbc
ora: CRs will have new URLs?
pa: short URL will not change, version URLs with date etc. will have "-CR" shortname
… the short URL will then point to CR, not the latest working draft
<pfps> So what needs to be done (for Semantics, in particular)?
ora: great
… the chairs and PA proposed a presentation at the KG conference as a status update
… conference will be in 1st week of May
… had a conference like that last year, was well attended
… people want to see what is happening
pfps: what are our next steps?
… there are some specific feedback items during horiziontal review, TAG and accessibilty
pfps: I am looking at accessibilty request 139
… less operational one is the general comment from W3C "ping" (privacy guys)
pa: they do not see that as blocking,
… suggestion was to make the abstract more introductory
pfps: impossible for semantics
ora: these concerns are not too strong
pfps: the privacy one: maybe they want to have more explanatory text
… we can have that after CR
pa: agree
pfps: fine on ignoring the semantics comment completely
ora: agree
pfps: need to look into semantics: what is in the tables
andy: on CR and ecidna
… can we still do PRs on the docs or do we have to delay that?
pa: no need to keep the repo in line with CR
… so one can continue PRs
… editors draft is still linked from GH pages
… any class 3-4 changes should not be merged
… as long as we do changes that do not cause problems after CR, we can merge them into the main branch
<niklasl> Is there a link to the problem with tables in Semantics? (I think e.g. https://
pa: no what to do next: ensure that the test suites are complete
… will be focus during CR period
andy: do we have to freeze the test suite?
… so if we get an implementation report, we need to know what is being reported on
pa: if we have radical changes after getting an implementation report, we may have an issue
… making such changes would be not nice towards implementers
ora: how does the spec life cycle work
… can we go from one CR to a new version of CR?
<TallTed> "CR Snapshot"
pa: there are CR snap shot
… we do not need to bounce back to WD esp. for editorial changes
ora: do we then list the changes?
pa: sure
Review of open actions, available at 5
pa: item on ecidna, will be closed after check on RDF interop republishing
adrian: should we pause it?
pa: yes
Identifying issues to solve before CR 6
adrian: waiting for editors notes issue
adrian: ora and I will take care of dashboard access issue
implementation reports
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 187 Confirm organisation of implementation reports (by afs) [ms:CR]
adrian: on organization of implementation report, who should respond to this?
andy: per document or put them into the RDF test repo
andy: I would do "per doc repo"
… so it gets frozen once it is available
… rdf test repo will not have the same state
adrian: makes sense
andy: test suite is currently broken, need to check it can run
adrian: should the tests be next to the docs?
andy: json-ld does "per doc", not sure
adrian: is there a reason against this?
pa: "per doc" makes sense
<niklasl> Yep, JSON-LD has tests in w3c/
pa: json-ld is a bit different
ktk: it seems there is not a consistent way how they publish tests in json-ld 1.1
… we could then consistently put the tests in the git repo
ora: where would people look for tests?
… per doc makes a lot of sense
pa: header has links to test suite and implementation report
… if several specs point to same report, they should find their way
adrian: should we make a comment in the issue to record the decision
pa: I will create a topic in the minutes and cite the minutes in the issue
other open PRs
adrian: line item 9 , on paragraph and n-triples
… can be merged as well, 2 approvals
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 90 add paragraph stating that N-Triples 1.2 is not ambiguous for 1.1 implems (by pchampin) [ms:CR]
pa: andy had comments on this PR
… tried to apply them, andy please check
… it is duplicating what you did in concepts
adrian: line item 10 is super new
… last one is super new, will talk about that next time
… may be the same thing the accessibility people pinged us about
adrian: any other comments?
Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
ora: no task force meeting tomorrow
andy: propsed closing on RDF concepts about a PR
pa: propose closing a PR by william about adding more examples about triple based reification
… I think most of the examples belong to a separate doc
… I proposed closing
… William said: what to do for having the examples included somewhere else
… so he is ok with closing this, we owe him a response
… a reiffication best practice doc would be the right place
enrico: I can respond.
… I created the structure for the doc
pa: first create it on your web space
… if we adopt it we will move the repo
enrico: ok
ora: AOB?
ora: next steps - chairs and PA will attend security IG group meeting