16:58:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
16:58:20 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-rdf-star-irc
16:58:20 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
16:58:21 <ktk> meeting: RDF-star WG meeting
16:58:41 <ktk> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e5234c80-4c06-4c6b-af43-c78a1dbd390a/20260226T120000/
16:58:41 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:58:41 <agendabot> agenda+ Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2026/02/19-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:58:41 <agendabot> agenda+ Next Horizontal Reviews
16:58:41 <agendabot> agenda+ Updates from the SPARQL TF
16:58:42 <agendabot> agenda+ Review of open actions, available at -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3
16:58:45 <agendabot> agenda+ Identifying issues to solve before CR -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/8
16:58:48 <agendabot> agenda+ Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
16:59:12 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:59:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
16:59:20 <ktk> RRSAgent, make log public
16:59:41 <ktk> present+
16:59:50 <Dominik_T> present+
17:00:00 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
17:01:04 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
17:01:12 <lisp> lisp has joined #rdf-star
17:01:26 <tl> present+
17:01:27 <pchampin> present+
17:01:32 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:01:32 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/02/19-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:01:38 <TallTed> present+
17:01:40 <gtw> present+
17:01:41 <AndyS> present +
17:01:49 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
17:01:54 <lisp> present+
17:02:09 <niklasl> present+
17:02:09 <AndyS> scribe: AndyS
17:02:24 <ora> present+
17:02:28 <ora> chair+
17:02:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:02:35 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-star
17:02:43 <AZ> present+
17:03:02 <olaf> present+
17:03:12 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
17:03:20 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
17:03:27 <Souri> present+
17:04:04 <ktk> Zakim, open item 1
17:04:04 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2026/02/19-rdf-star-minutes.html -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:04:31 <Souri> +1
17:04:42 <pchampin> +1
17:04:42 <Dominik_T> +0 (not present)
17:04:45 <AZ> +1
17:04:46 <ora> proposal: Approve last week's minutes
17:04:48 <tl> +1
17:04:48 <niklasl> +1
17:04:49 <AndyS> +1
17:04:49 <gtw> +1
17:04:50 <olaf> +1
17:04:50 <ktk> +0
17:04:54 <lisp> +1
17:04:54 <pfps> +1
17:04:55 <ora> +0 (not present)
17:05:18 <ora> resolved: Approve last week's minutes
17:05:31 <ktk> Zakim, next item
17:05:31 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Next Horizontal Reviews -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:06:50 <AndyS> pchampin: We can go forward with next docs to go to horizontal review.
17:07:27 <AndyS> ... TTL, NQ, TriG
17:08:11 <AndyS> ... some pending PRs but these are not blocking
17:08:36 <AndyS> ... remaining changes are not substanive
17:08:50 <AndyS> ... good time for a group review of the doc
17:08:55 <AndyS> q+
17:09:41 <AndyS> ... we should record we agree to move towards CR
17:09:46 <pchampin> scribe+
17:10:00 <AndyS> ack me
17:10:34 <pchampin> AndyS: to clarify: we are talking about Turtle, TriG and N-Quads, right?
17:10:36 <pchampin> pchampin: yes
17:10:59 <pchampin> scribe-
17:11:06 <ora> proposal: Declare WG's intent to move Turtle, N-quads, and TriG specs to CR, and initiate horizontal reviews
17:11:09 <ora> +1
17:11:10 <niklasl> +1
17:11:14 <pchampin> +1
17:11:14 <Dominik_T> +1
17:11:15 <lisp> +1
17:11:16 <TallTed> +1
17:11:16 <olaf> +1
17:11:18 <AZ> +1
17:11:18 <AndyS> +1
17:11:19 <ktk> +1
17:11:27 <Souri> +1
17:11:34 <tl> +1
17:11:44 <ora> resolved: Declare WG's intent to move Turtle, N-quads, and TriG specs to CR, and initiate horizontal reviews
17:12:24 <ktk> Zakim, next item
17:12:24 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Updates from the SPARQL TF -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:13:27 <pchampin> scribe+
17:13:34 <pchampin> AndyS: nothing particular from me
17:13:48 <pchampin> scribe-
17:13:59 <AndyS> lisp: some topics that might be intersting to the WG --
17:14:19 <AndyS> ... service description - need something for new features of RDF 1.2
17:14:37 <AndyS> ... could be just "1.2 supported" or more detailed
17:15:15 <AndyS> ... TF response - would people use more detail?
17:16:38 <AndyS> ... 3 ways : (1) in REC (2) std vocab, not required (3) too complex - just SPARQL 1.2
17:16:46 <AndyS> ... for automation
17:17:35 <AndyS> ... I have an alt draft fro service description
17:17:54 <AndyS> ... will add to "discussions" on github
17:18:11 <AndyS> lisp: Another topic: SPARQL protocol
17:18:22 <pfps> present+
17:18:48 <gtw> q+
17:18:57 <AndyS> ... I have an alternative manifest which has tests in JSON/javascript.
17:18:59 <ora> ack gtw
17:19:27 <AndyS> gtw: Current tests are RDF manifest. The perl code was used for development not in the manifest.
17:19:38 <AndyS> ... it was a tool used for verification
17:19:56 <TallTed> JavaScript would *seem* to be more "portable" as it wouldn't require a Perl ecosystem, but rather run in a browser ... but then there's the question of whether all browser JavaScript implementations are created equal
17:20:13 <AndyS> ... it "may" work - unproven - but we should get away from it being the "source of truth"
17:20:34 <AndyS> ... the manifest should be the "source of truth".
17:21:16 <AndyS> lisp: does it depend on showing the manifest works?
17:21:34 <TallTed> "source of truth" must be spec. Manifest is derived from spec. Tests are derived from manifest.
17:21:45 <AndyS> q+
17:22:21 <AndyS> TallTed: Are all JS platforms equal? e.g. in browser, outside brower.
17:22:46 <AndyS> ... perl better versioned (?)
17:23:10 <ora> ack AndyS
17:23:12 <pchampin> scribe+
17:23:17 <pchampin> AndyS: two points
17:23:36 <pchampin> ... as far as what the source of truth is, I agree it should be the manifest
17:24:03 <pchampin> ... to assess the existence of interoperable implementations, they need to pass the manifest
17:24:24 <niklasl> Is this also relevant (as an alternative runner): https://github.com/ad-freiburg/sparql-conformance ? (Just trying to see what this would entail.)
17:25:05 <pchampin> ... I also wanted to put on the table that this is starting to take time in the SPARQL TF
17:25:19 <pchampin> ... we also have a lot of errata to address
17:25:36 <pfps> +1 to do the stuff that needs to be done first
17:26:12 <pchampin> ... to niklas: this uses the protocol to use *other* tests, so not relevant
17:28:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:28:57 <pchampin> ora: if the manifest is the source of truth, we are moving away from the significance of the runners
17:29:11 <AndyS> ora: If the manifest is the SOT, then we still need to explain how to use the manifest.
17:29:27 <pchampin> ... I'm assuming some prose explains how the manifest is to be used; that's also part of the source of truth
17:29:36 <pchampin> scribe-
17:29:55 <AndyS> s/ora: If the manifest is the SOT, then we still need to explain how to use the manifest.//
17:31:01 <niklasl> q+
17:31:05 <AndyS> lisp: the manifest will be in good shape.
17:31:08 <gtw> there are at least 3 manifests. the official one (with bugs). james' version. and Gregg's updated version in a github PR.
17:31:09 <ora> ack niklasl
17:31:57 <AndyS> niklasl: impl report could say which test runner was used.
17:32:38 <AndyS> ora: next - wait for james updated version then demonstrate its usable?
17:33:20 <AndyS> ... (to james) how to show how the manifest is used?
17:33:52 <AndyS> lisp: I heard that impl reports would be runner+impl results
17:34:03 <gtw> re: black box, that's what we currently do for *all* the tests, right?
17:34:32 <AndyS> lisp: we could have a reference implementation
17:34:49 <AndyS> ora: they (ref impls) tend to bit-rot
17:35:12 <gtw> q+
17:35:26 <TallTed> a "reference implementation" substitutes for a "spec" as the source of truth. Don't want a "reference implementation".
17:35:30 <ora> ack gtw
17:35:38 <AndyS> gtw: This is like our other tests.
17:35:39 <AndyS> q+
17:37:00 <ora> ack AndyS
17:37:07 <pchampin> scribe+
17:37:18 <TallTed> it's not entirely unreasonable to say "where there is disagreement between the output of the reference implementation's black box and the spec, the spec is the intended SoT".
17:37:23 <pchampin> AndyS: for other tests, we specify the input and the expected output; this is simple
17:37:52 <pchampin> ... in the case of the protocol, it is harder to describe what you send and what to expect
17:38:03 <lisp> q+
17:38:21 <ora> ack lisp
17:38:35 <pchampin> ... we need to be more precise on what "equality" for the expected result
17:38:38 <pchampin> scribe-
17:39:59 <AndyS> lisp: an issue is that Gregg had attempted to capture the details of necessary input +output + declaring expected output
17:41:42 <gtw> for context, here's Gregg's PR that re-models the protocol manifest: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/pull/79
17:41:42 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/pull/79 -> Pull Request 79 Fix protocol manifest (by gkellogg)
17:42:00 <niklasl> q+
17:42:18 <ora> ack niklasl
17:42:18 <AndyS> ora: keep this simple but sufficient.
17:43:16 <AndyS> niklasl: interested in this work
17:44:04 <ktk> https://httpie.io/
17:45:18 <ktk> Zakim, next item
17:45:18 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Review of open actions, available at -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:46:47 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/188 -> Action 188 check with domel that he is OK to move forward to Horizontal review and CR for n-quads, turtle and trig (on pchampin) due 2026-02-26
17:46:49 <AndyS> pchampin: can close #188
17:46:49 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/188 -> Action 188 check with domel that he is OK to move forward to Horizontal review and CR for n-quads, turtle and trig (on pchampin) due 2026-02-26
17:47:20 <niklasl> No change for me (my question in the last comment is about further direction).
17:47:52 <ktk> Zakim, next item
17:47:52 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Identifying issues to solve before CR -> 3 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/8 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:48:02 <AndyS> agenda?
17:49:00 <ktk> Zakim, next item
17:49:00 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:49:29 <pchampin> scribe+
17:49:42 <ktk> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/265
17:49:43 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/265 -> Pull Request 265 improve discussion on text direction - fix #262 (by pchampin) [needs discussion]
17:50:22 <AndyS> pchampin: we need confirmation from i18n before merging
17:50:35 <AndyS> .. then i18n review is done
17:50:52 <AndyS> s/.. then/... then/
17:51:22 <AndyS> ... i18n have tracking items for other specs - unclear if they will get new feedback.
17:55:08 <ktk> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/269
17:55:08 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/269 -> Pull Request 269 GH-268: Some URI schemes are not path-hierarchical (by afs)
17:59:39 <pchampin> AndyS: we have a dependabot PR on rdf-tests
17:59:54 <pchampin> pchampin: I have a Dockerfile to run the automations locally, I'll test this PR with it
18:00:11 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:00:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
18:18:30 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star