Meeting minutes
Approval of last week’s minutes: 1
<pfps> look OK to me
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes
<ora> +1
<Dominik_T> +0 (not present)
<niklasl> +1
<AndyS> +1
<olaf> +1
<lisp> 0
<gtw> +1
<Souri> 0 (could not attend)
<pchampin> +1
<AZ> 0 (not present last week)
<ktk> +1
<TallTed> +1
<william-vw> +1
<pfps> +1
CR Status
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes
ora: we have moved to CR for the first batch of specifications
… it is a big milestone, and I think a bunch of people thought we would never get there
… what is remarkable is that we get substantial participation after 3 1/2 years
pchampin: we have *resolved* to publish them as CR; I submitted the transition request
… if everything goes smoothly, they should be published on 7 April
TallTed: Virtuoso has started RDF 1.2 implementation, passing virtually all tests for the 3 docs to date
<ktk> List with transition announce: https://
<ktk> see Friday 27th
ora: I wanted to mention that we should reach out to the implementers that we know
… Also, the Knowledge Graph conference is in the beginning of May, ktk and I will be there
… it is good that we will be in CR by then; we will probably get a lot of questions
ktk: and it is cool that we can report that some implementations are already there
TallTed: that was 3 document out of 27, so it is not that "we are in CR", it is that "we are starting to be in CR"
ktk: we also wanted to propose to prepare a post on LinkedIn about the transition to CR
AndyS: does anything change about how we update documents during CR?
… If you are taking to the KG conference, do we make an effort to quickly put Turtle in the process?
… most examples are in Turtle, more readable than N-Triples
ora: that would be helpful, we have exactly one month
pchampin: once a spec is in CR, we disable echidna, so TR is not updated when we push to the main branch
… but the Editor's Draft is still updated, we can continue working as usual
… I don't think that we can hope to have Turtle published as CR in 1 month
Review of open actions, available at 2
ora: I have not done anything on my actions
niklasl: nothing to report either, waiting for some replies
Review of open PRs, available at 3
pchampin: the "prepare CR snapshop" PRs contain the snapshot submitted for transition request
… I had to include some text describing explicitly the exit criteria
… I didn't wait for the PRs to be merged to make the transition request, though, in the interest of time
pfps: there are some PRs for SPARQL entailment
… I think some of those are ready to go, none really exciting, mostly updating to RDF 1.2 entailment
… Also, what about "common files by reference", are these good to do? I guess there is no hurry
<niklasl> Yes, I think the ones that been merged look fine, so I guess they're all good to go.
pchampin: the "common files by reference" were merged last week on the documents for which I generated CR snapshot, that seemed to go well
ora: what about the diagram of the threat model? pchampin you made some changes?
pchampin: I applied some comments from last week, and made the textual description of the figure part of the caption (rather than hidden in alt text)
… for me it is good to merge
ora: what about PRs on the tests?
AndyS: the protocol one is still under work
… the RDF/XML one needs work on the RDF/XML specification
… they are all progressing
… there is one on sparql-query from pfps, with some suggestions against it
<j22> (note: Jerven has taken the next three fridays off to work on RDF/XML spec)
pfps: [discussions about the suggested changes, about text alignment]
AndyS: I'll put together a summary of the RDF/XML issues that are spreaded around
j22: thanks you
ora: I need to find my ORCID for the RDF/XML
pfps: is it a requirement to have an ORCID for all editors?
j22: not a requirement, but a nice to have
pfps: ok, will look into that for semantics
<TallTed> https://
pchampin: the doc itself is just the Respec template; my priority was to provide the diagram
<j22> ORCIDs are nicely LOD curl -L -H 'accept:text/turtle' '
Identifying issues to solve before CR 4
ora: Regarding the Editor's note issue
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 248 Resolve "Editor's notes" (by afs) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
ora: it should be ok, right?
ktk: it should be
ora: also we can close the Horizontal Review tracker for the documents that are transitioned to CR
https://
pchampin: I created this empty page so that the "implementation report" link in the specs does not return a 404
… we need to decide on our process to populate them
ora: what about w3c/rdf-xml#86
<gb> Issue 86 Evolving 1.2 triple term features : rdf:parseType, rdf:annotation (by afs) [ms:CR]
j22: I will be working on that, but I'm not sure to find an elegant solution that everybody will be happy with
<ora> S
AndyS: there is no perfect solution; there is no way to change RDF 1.1 without theoretically breaking some corner cases
… one way that it breaks is about text direction, and it is not even under our control
… the its:dir was previously a property attribute, now it is not
… hopefully, RDF/XML users will be able to give feedback on which use-cases they care most
… I am not to concerned about adding things to the rdf: namespace; if it breaks someone's use-case, too bad
… I also did not know, but we can not currently add the version at the top level
<niklasl> +1 to that
AndyS: If we make breaking changes, we can make it smoother for future versions
… CIM (Common Information Model) is kind of RDF/XML, but based on a pre-1.0 version
… I don't know if it is officially RDF/XML or just happens to be nearly aligned
pchampin: I'm a bit concerned about the TAG review for RDF/XML. We already had to argue about the (less) breaking changes in N-Triples.
… we will need good arguments
<TallTed> possibly helpful -- from https://
<TallTed> UML-based CIM and the RDF-based exchange files."
<j22> For next week, acceptance of breaking changes in other specs was quite high? did that change?
<pchampin> regrets for next week