– DRAFT –
RDF-star WG meeting

Approval of last week’s minutes: 1

<ora> proposal: Approve last week's minutes

<niklasl> +1

<pchampin> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<pfps> +1

<ktk> +1

<ora> 0 (not present)

<william-vw> 0

<gtw> +1

<TallTed> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes

Updates from the SPARQL TF

Review of open actions, available at 2

Review of open PRs, available at 3

pchampin: there is a remaining one in rdf-concepts, I followed up to get feedback from i18n group.
… If we don't get feedback we will force-merge it but I prefer to get some feedback first.

w3c/rdf-concepts#265

<gb> Pull Request 265 improve discussion on text direction - fix #262 (by pchampin)

w3c/rdf-schema#66

<gb> Pull Request 66 Declare XSD 1.1 facets as rdf:Property and annotate them (by domel) [needs discussion]

pfps: It's editorial, I propose to merge.

ora: Do it

pfps: I will push the button

gtw: I'm gonna merge w3c/rdf-tests#306

<gb> Pull Request 306 Fix SPARQL Protocol manifest tests. (by kasei)

gtw: this will fix a broken test introduced in another WG.

<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to improve semantics test suite

pfps: w3c/rdf-tests#290 we corrected some things, it has conflicts but other than that should be merged.

<gb> Pull Request 290 Improve semantics test suite (by pchampin) [Semantics]

pchampin: I will fix the conflicts

ora: What about w3c/rdf-tests#292

<gb> Pull Request 292 Fix and move az-tests (by pchampin) [Semantics]

pfps: I think it's a suggestion by TallTed, missing his approval.
… Should be able to go in too.

TallTed: I approved it now

pfps: I will take care of w3c/rdf-tests#297

<gb> Pull Request 297 add missing recognizedDatatypes (by pchampin) [Semantics]

pfps: and comment.

ora: is w3c/rdf-tests#289 the reason why we see some red in other PRs?

<gb> Pull Request 289 Bump rack from 3.1.18 to 3.1.20 in the bundler group across 1 directory (by dependabot) [dependencies] [ruby]

pchampin: This is most likely a security fix. I did not notice this one, will check it out.

ora: w3c/rdf-tests#79 has conflicts.

<gb> Pull Request 79 Fix protocol manifest (by gkellogg)

pchampin: This is a very old one. Gregg rebased it last summer.
… gtw any ideas on that?

gtw: I generally agree.
… I'm interested to pursue this again but I'm not sure we could continue with this. I think it would have to be reworked.

TallTed: We should keep it open until we have a replacement for it.

ora: w3c/rdf-tests#191 needs a review

<gb> Pull Request 191 Fix a wrong expected SPARQL protocol test result (by joka921)

gtw: I will take a look at that.

ora: what about w3c/rdf-tests#255

<gb> Pull Request 255 Build GitHub pages explicitly with HTML files (by Tpt)

pchampin: could probably be merged but I would prefer one of the test-editors to do that.

ora: w3c/rdf-tests#260 has conflicts

<gb> Pull Request 260 Beginning of manifest validations using SHACL (by Tpt)

ora: we can come back to those who have conflicts.

ora: w3c/rdf-tests#298 looks like it could be merged

<gb> Pull Request 298 Dockerfile and bash script to generate HTML files locally (by pchampin)

pchampin: I got an approval from Ruben, not sure what the others think. Could be complementary to 255 that we mentioned earlier.

ora: that could be merged then

pchampin: I'll request approval from andy/tpt

pchampin: w3c/rdf-tests#299 dependabot made suggestions. This is applying dependabot suggestions without the problems. Will merge

<gb> MERGED Pull Request 299 fix security issues reported by dependabot (by pchampin)

ora: w3c/rdf-tests#310 needs pchampin's attention

<gb> Pull Request 310 Fix broken manifest reference (by erdemonal)

pchampin: will check it out

ktk: this issue here w3c/rdf-tests#248

<gb> Issue 248 GSP Test `DELETE - existing graph` has wrong expected result (by Qup42)

ktk: was mentioned in a QLever issue. Would be interesting to know if this is a problem for others as well or not.

Identifying issues to solve before CR 4

w3c/rdf-concepts#248 (comment)

<gb> Issue 248 Resolve "Editor's notes" (by afs) [ms:CR]

ktk: This is the proposal for the final list, plus a comment about Gregg.

ora: I really like the comment about Gregg.

<pchampin> +1

<william-vw> +1 for Gregg's acknowledgement

<Souri> Is my name there?

<TallTed> yes, Souri, your name is in the list

<william-vw> TallTed good catch lol

<ora> proposal: Approve the list of contributors as in w3c/rdf-concepts#248 (comment)

<ora> (Modulo ordering changes as discussed)

<ora> +1

<niklasl> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<pchampin> +1

<Souri> +1

<gtw> +1

<ktk> +1

<TallTed> +1

<william-vw> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve the list of contributors as in w3c/rdf-concepts#248 (comment)

<gb> Issue 248 Resolve "Editor's notes" (by afs) [ms:CR]

pchampin: as we are under CR transition. Where are we under horizontal review

ktk: Text is done, I will submit them Friday

pchampin: Second one is a heads-up on the HR that we have. i18n I mentioned on concept, the only pending ones are security on all.
… I had a discussion with the security lead at W3C. He is ok with transitioning the three documents to CR, without threat model for the specs.
… The deal is that we will have a Threat Model document/note for the WG, for RDF & SPARQL.
… Before transitioning to REC, we would reference that document in the security section.
… The document does not have to be finalized, it will be a living document, non-normative.
… I can create the repo for that.
… The Security Community Group also opens some of the agenda slots to other groups. I would like a group decision to create this repository for this note.
… Those interested in contributing to that, we should try to find a convenient slot in the security CG.

<ora> proposal: Create repo for an RDF threat model note

<ora> +1

<ktk> +1

<pchampin> +1

<william-vw> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<niklasl> +1

<gtw> +1

<Souri> +1

<TallTed> +1

RESOLUTION: Create repo for an RDF threat model note

Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting