Meeting minutes
Approval of last week’s minutes: 1
<pchampin> PROPOSED: approve minutes https://
<pchampin> +0
<TallTed> +1
<j22> +1
<doerthe> +0
<tl> +1
<pfps> minutes look fine to me
<pfps> +1
<olaf> +1
<Souri> +1
<lisp> +1
<gtw> +1
<niklasl> +1
<AndyS> +1
<AZ> +0 (not present)
RESOLUTION: approve minutes https://
Next Horizontal Reviews
pchampin: question here is, should we start the next batch: the rest of the "turtle family"? Does the group think that we are ready for that?
<niklasl> Sound good to me.
<AndyS> Sounds good.
<olaf> What do the editors of these docs think?
pchampin: we should ask the editor, unfortunately, Dominik is not present
<pchampin> STRAWPOLL: should we start Horizontal Review, aiming for CR, for n-quads, turtle and trig?
pchampin: but we could do a straw poll
<pchampin> +1
<niklasl> +1
<Souri> +1
<pfps> +1
<enrico> +1
<doerthe> +1
<AZ> +1
<olaf> +1
<gtw> +1
<TallTed> +1
<tl> +0
<AndyS> NQ needs profile?
<j22> +0
<AndyS> w3c/
<gb> Issue 88 `profile` in Internet Media Type (by domel)
<lisp> +1
phampin: we need to add the profile for NQ, I think the same for turtle and TriG
… but these issues do not stop us from requesting horizontal review
<AndyS> w3c/
<gb> Issue 124 Proposal: Support trailing commas, not just trailing semicolons (by trwnh)
AndyS: there is one outstanding issue, namely w3c/
… we discussed that one last week
… I did not close it yet
<pchampin> i|github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/124/|subtopic: trailing commas in Turtle
pchampin: Did we decide not not do the change because it would break other things?
Andys: yes
pchampin: anything else there to add?
<AndyS> +1 to go to horizontal review
ACTION: pchampin to check with domel that he is OK to move forward to Horizontal review and CR for n-quads, turtle and trig
<gb> Created action #188
status of N-Triples
<pchampin> w3c/
<gb> Issue 79 Horizontal Reviews tracker for N-Triples (by pchampin) [ms:CR]
Souri: I am all for going for N-quads, turtle, and TriG. How do we deal with the open issues of N-triples?
<pchampin> w3c/
<gb> Issue 84 `version` parameter registration conflicts with common practice. (by afs)
pchampin: I am just checking the issues, most of these seem to not stop us, but I will have a closer look
Review of open actions, available at 2
pchampin: anything from you to report, niklasl?
niklasl: not really, waiting for feedback
Identifying issues to solve before CR 3
pchampin: anything to report on these issues?
Issue 248 Resolve "Editor's notes" (by afs) [ms:CR]
pchampin: this one w3c/
… any comments on that?
Semantic tests Issue 179 Semantics tests: location of test files. (by afs) [ms:CR] Issue 181 Semantics tests: Confirm that the test suite is complete and executable (by afs) [ms:CR] Issue 183 Semantics tests : open issues (by afs) [ms:CR]
pchampin: there are some problems with the test suite of RDF semantics
… I ran my implementation against the tests and created two PRs for the issues I found
… I also raised a few issues
pfps: I reviewed the PRs and they look good to me
… for your other issues, I created one PR (for the most easy one)
… we need to think about the missing entailment rule
<pchampin> w3c/
<gb> Issue 185 missing pattern for RDFS entailment (by pchampin) [spec:enhancement]
pfps: I found a problem with overlapping value spaced, I will submit it later
technically all these changes are editorial as they only cover the informative entailment rules
… one problem was about the completeness of the test suite
pfps: it cannot be complete but we are the most important cases
pchampin: AZ, you also have test cases, right? Maybe it is a good time to add these now?
AZ: I made some for RDF 1.1 but they were never added, not sure whether we should do it now. It mainly covers corner cases
… of course I can add them
AndyS: can we move the manifest somewhere special, so that people can directly see what needs to be covered
pchampin: we have a subfolder structure which can be confusing, especially manifest-az, the other manifests seem right to me
… if we move manifest-AZ, would that solve the problem for you Andy?
AndyS: yes
Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
w3c/rdf-semantics#185
enrico: you opened an issues for a missing entailment and I think it is not sound
… because what if you start with an empty graph
pchampin: but there are axiomatic triples in RDFS
enrico: ok, but what if they have a triple term?
<niklasl> IPR from IR x IP x IR
pchampin: but there are no triple terms in the axiomatic triples
<niklasl> at least rdf:type
pfps: not sure whether it should be an axiom or an entailment rules
… the problem is the fresh blank node
… we should add it as a rule
pchampin: I will add more PRs
… there is also a problem with integer and decimal as these overlap
niklasl: I am afraid of an infinite amount of triples in w3c/
<gb> Issue 185 missing pattern for RDFS entailment (by pchampin) [ms:CR] [spec:enhancement]
pchampin: it is not a problem because we use a blank node here. But of course we can have an infinite amount of proposition.
ISWC tutorial
Souri: There was a tutorial about RDF-star at ISWC, could we keep the slides for that up to date?
enrico: so far it is up to date
… I will use the slides in my note about reification
<pchampin> https://