15:51:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:51:55 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/04/09-rdf-star-irc
15:51:55 <ktk> meeting: RDF-star WG meeting
15:52:22 <ktk> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e5234c80-4c06-4c6b-af43-c78a1dbd390a/20260409T120000/
15:52:22 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:52:22 <agendabot> agenda+ Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2026/04/02-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:52:22 <agendabot> agenda+ CR Status
15:52:22 <agendabot> agenda+ TAG Turtle family concerns -> 2 https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/blob/gh-pages/2026/telcons/03-16-minutes.md#design-reviews1161-wg-new-spec-rdf-12-n-triples-github---csarven  -> 3 https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/blob/gh-pages/2026/telcons/03-30-minutes.md#design-reviews1161-wg-new-
15:52:25 <agendabot> … spec-rdf-12-n-triples-github---csarven  -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/127
15:52:28 <agendabot> agenda+ Review of open PRs, available at -> 5 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4
15:52:31 <agendabot> agenda+ Identifying issues to solve before CR -> 6 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/8
15:52:34 <agendabot> agenda+ Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
15:52:48 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:52:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/09-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
15:52:51 <ktk> RRSAgent, make log public
15:52:59 <ktk> present+
15:55:09 <AndyS> present+
15:56:17 <gtw> present+
15:56:20 <gtw> scribe+
15:56:28 <j22> present+
15:59:50 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:00:42 <lisp> lisp has joined #rdf-star
16:00:49 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
16:01:13 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
16:01:34 <ktk> regrets+ pchampin Dominik_T
16:01:42 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:01:46 <Souri> present+
16:01:50 <ora> present+
16:01:54 <ora> chair+
16:02:29 <lisp> present+
16:02:36 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:02:46 <pfps> present+
16:02:55 <niklasl> present+
16:03:07 <ktk> Zakim, open item 1
16:03:07 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2026/04/02-rdf-star-minutes.html -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:03:43 <ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes
16:03:48 <gtw> +1
16:03:50 <niklasl> +1
16:03:55 <ora> +1
16:03:56 <pfps> +1
16:03:56 <ktk> +1
16:04:03 <j22> +1
16:04:10 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
16:04:13 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:04:14 <enrico> present+
16:04:21 <olaf> present+
16:04:21 <AndyS> +1
16:04:32 <olaf> +1
16:04:34 <enrico> +1
16:04:40 <Souri> +1
16:04:49 <lisp> +1
16:04:55 <ora> RESOLVED: Approve last week's minutes
16:05:01 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:05:01 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- CR Status -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:05:02 <TallTed> +1
16:05:09 <tl> present+
16:05:38 <gtw> ora: CR status. I thought I'd post on linkedin for attention. Looking for implementatino experience.
16:05:43 <ora> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2026Apr/0009.html
16:06:04 <ktk> +q
16:06:10 <ora> ack ktk
16:06:27 <gtw> ktk: Concepts and semantics are through. We will talk next about N-Triples.
16:06:31 <gtw> ... on hold from the TAG.
16:06:38 <gtw> ... linkedin post is good because abstract things are done.
16:06:49 <gtw> ora: Working link to the N-Triples and other things.
16:06:58 <gtw> ... anybody opposed to my posting?
16:07:23 <AndyS> q+ to say that we haven't sorted out where impl reports should go to.
16:07:33 <ora> ack AndyS
16:07:33 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to say that we haven't sorted out where impl reports should go to.
16:07:44 <gtw> AndyS: I don't think we've said where to send implementation reports.
16:07:52 <gtw> ... not about your message.
16:08:12 <gtw> ... quick and dirty solution?
16:08:20 <gtw> ora: yes. rdf-comments or something.
16:08:26 <gtw> AndyS: raise a PR on rdf-tests.
16:08:38 <gtw> ... I think there's a directory.
16:09:07 <gtw> ... we could ask for PRs to the WG repo?
16:09:09 <niklasl> Cf. https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/tree/main/reports
16:09:39 <gtw> TallTed: need to get replicated somehow.
16:09:48 <gtw> AndyS: I was suggesting we have an inbox. Then we can sort out details as needed.
16:09:58 <gtw> ora: could we ask to just post on the group mailing list?
16:10:03 <gtw> AndyS: that would work.
16:10:08 <gtw> ora: I can add that to the post.
16:10:32 <gtw> AndyS: caveat is that there's a bug in the N-Triples test suite. PR to fix it.
16:10:36 <gtw> ora: we'll get to that.
16:10:48 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:10:48 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- TAG Turtle family concerns -> 2
16:10:49 <Zakim> ... https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/blob/gh-pages/2026/telcons/03-16-minutes.md#design-reviews1161-wg-new-spec-rdf-12-n-triples-github---csarven  -> 3
16:10:49 <Zakim> ... https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/blob/gh-pages/2026/telcons/03-30-minutes.md#design-reviews1161-wg-new- -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:10:50 <TallTed> +1 post impl reports to mailing list. its unlikely to get flooded (and hey, if it does, validation!)
16:11:26 <gtw> ktk: Basically two feedback from TAG about Turtle family.
16:11:48 <gtw> ... In both cases raised by Sarven. Concern is about forward compatibility.
16:11:55 <gtw> ... RDF 1.2 introduces new syntactic constructs, not underestood by 1.1 processors.
16:12:14 <gtw> ... the TAG is concerned no guarantee of compatability by 1.1 systems.
16:12:27 <ora> s/underestood/understood
16:12:27 <gtw> ... could end up in situation where unclear what happens when 1.1 processor consumes 1.2 data.
16:12:36 <gtw> ... not every impl would behave the same. could get incomplete data.
16:12:49 <gtw> ... we are aware of it.
16:12:58 <gtw> ... they invited us to a call.
16:13:12 <gtw> ... we propose to take next call in 2 weeks. we wanted to bump that with the group, think about how to we react.
16:13:24 <gtw> ... really hard to fix the past. we cannot change 1.1 parsers.
16:13:25 <ora> +1
16:13:36 <ora> s/+1/q+
16:13:38 <ora> q+
16:14:02 <gtw> ora: The way I think about it is if an RDF 1.1 processor consumes 1.2 data, and produces an error, that's not our problem.
16:14:26 <gtw> ... I would be concerned where it consumes 1.2 content and produces something without an error, and result is somehow erroneous.
16:14:27 <ora> ack ora
16:14:48 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-star
16:14:55 <gtw> ... do we need to worry about that? I don't see why we should worry about the first case. We're adding new stuff, things break when it comes to older stuff.
16:14:57 <AZ> present+
16:15:12 <gtw> q+
16:15:14 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:15:17 <ora> ack gtw
16:15:20 <AndyS> q+
16:15:21 <j22> q+
16:15:30 <doerthe> present+
16:16:32 <lisp> q+
16:16:41 <tl> q+
16:16:46 <pfps> q+
16:16:50 <ora> ack AndyS
16:16:51 <TallTed> q+
16:17:10 <gtw> AndyS: in the discussion, they allude to other comments but I couldn't find them.
16:17:44 <gtw> ... if you've got a parser that parses RDF 1.1, finds somethign that isn't 1.1 (syntax error), all bets are off.
16:17:50 <gtw> ... you can't specify error conditions in all cases.
16:17:59 <gtw> ... Sarven makes this point in one of the minutes. I didn't see that being recognized.
16:18:11 <gtw> ... root concern wasn't technical. it was reputational damage to W3C.
16:18:20 <gtw> ... W3C would be endorsing a format that changed meaning.
16:18:44 <gtw> ... wonder if we can expand conversation to say new features in RDF 1.2 are not changing the meaning of 1.1.
16:18:55 <gtw> ... they are different and new. could not be expressed semantically in 1.1.
16:19:10 <gtw> ... we have encoding, but not the same semantics as RDF 1.2.
16:19:12 <niklasl> +1, it's new grammar (so conformant 1.1 parsers will break) and new meanings
16:19:15 <gtw> ... they won't have seen that document yet.
16:19:36 <gtw> ... if parsers do random things on errors, that's true for broken strings. if you emit half a string as a literal because it ran out, ...
16:19:38 <ora> ack j
16:19:57 <gtw> j22: if it's reputational damage, I would mention that W3C has already endorsed standards in the past where the meaning of data has changed.
16:20:13 <gtw> ... XSD 1.1, gregorian years changed. shifted by +1 or -1.
16:20:21 <gtw> ... they've done this already.
16:20:38 <gtw> ... otherwise, you can't be forward compatible. LIke CSS with nested elements. Not parsable with old parsers. You can do anything with it.
16:20:43 <ora> ack lisp
16:20:45 <niklasl> +1 to that too
16:20:48 <ktk> +1
16:21:00 <gtw> lisp: there is one line in 1.1 Turtle document in section 5 on conformance.
16:21:08 <gtw> ... does not define how parsers handle non-conforming documents.
16:21:10 <pfps> q-
16:21:13 <gtw> ... of which 1.2 document would be one.
16:21:23 <gtw> ... either we have ability to edit that, or the behavior is undefined.
16:21:29 <ora> ack tl
16:21:42 <gtw> tl: we could disconnect from the past and define a new name. add versioning mechanism.
16:21:45 <gtw> ... and be done with it.
16:21:49 <AndyS> q+
16:21:49 <ora> ack TallTed
16:21:58 <gtw> TallTed: I don't understand what you're suggesting, tl.
16:22:18 <gtw> tl: Call it "Startle" or something. Content is 1.2 as we define it. The file ending is "tts" or something like that.
16:22:30 <gtw> TallTed: I don't think that maintains what most people understand semantic versioning to mean.
16:22:38 <gtw> ... 1.2 fully compatibile with 1.1.
16:22:54 <gtw> ... 1.1 can handle 1.2 data without problem, and vice versa.
16:23:08 <gtw> ... changing from undefined to defined behavior can be OK. But it has to be done in a non-breaking way.
16:23:23 <gtw> ... we can define that the way to handle 1.2 data is thus. but we cannot make a 1.1 processor do that.
16:23:49 <gtw> ... since 1.1 left a lot fo things undefined... lots of things do not trigger an error response. dropping data into /dev/null is not a good handling or an error response.
16:24:04 <gtw> ... saying I'm dropping this into /dev/null is OK if it allow some way to recover.
16:24:29 <gtw> ... if I'm loading n3 file, and some lines don't get put into the database because they don't conform with expectations, and dump those files into a new document to be handled later...
16:24:40 <gtw> ... I don't lose data, it's just misplaced. I think that's more viable. But no way to really do that.
16:24:57 <ora> ack AndyS
16:25:18 <gtw> AndyS: I would point out i18n is asking exactly what TAG is asking us not to do: break 1.1.
16:25:31 <gtw> ... comes down to: should we have a new mime type?
16:25:50 <gtw> ... the other aspect of that is realistically RDF has applicability well beyond the web platform.
16:26:18 <gtw> ... putting files on a file server without control of mime type handling. Chemical database is a good example -- an ftp database.
16:26:29 <gtw> ... if you invent a new mime type that's RDF 1.2, you've split the world.
16:26:34 <william-vw> william-vw has joined #rdf-star
16:26:35 <william-vw> present+
16:26:44 <gtw> ... 1.1 world and 1.2 world. yet the features of 1.2 are a superset of 1.1. Not a thing that changes 1.1.
16:26:50 <gtw> ... so you've cut off one of those halves from the other.
16:27:05 <ktk> q+
16:27:12 <gtw> ora: To me, it's hard to define a spec that is somehow resilient against future changes.
16:27:16 <TallTed> s/dump those files into/dump those rows into/
16:27:21 <gtw> ... 1.1 could have specified something about errors, but they didnt'.
16:27:43 <gtw> ... we could put some note into our spec, recognizing the fact that 1.1 spec is somewhat incomplete.
16:27:45 <ora> ack ktk
16:27:57 <gtw> ktk: interesting remark from list about Turtle.
16:28:17 <gtw> ... feedback from Sarven was about N-Triples. No similar language in N-Triples spec.
16:28:24 <gtw> ... is there a reason it's only written in Turtle spec?
16:29:01 <gtw> ora: we could communicate with TAG before meeting.
16:29:08 <gtw> ... Anybody who would like to join...
16:29:25 <gtw> AndyS: some of the TAG doesn't reflect the perfect answer. Has a lot of impact on implementations.
16:29:47 <gtw> ... they can be quite impactful. These ones would be very difficult to keep for the triple terms ones.
16:30:03 <gtw> ... to get a migration that the TAG would like to see. Data and parser writers are different communities.
16:30:28 <gtw> ... I think they have a slightly stronger case for text direction. It is so close to being language tag in Turtle.
16:30:38 <pfps> The "non-conforming" note in 1.1 Turtle is just an observation.  1.2 N-Triples has exactly the same situation, only missing the non-normative(?) Note.
16:30:42 <gtw> ... could imagine a parser was pretty lax about reading data in, would just merge the direction into the langtag.
16:30:53 <gtw> ... on the other side of the coin, that's a change that's being put upon us from the outside.
16:31:05 <gtw> ... ITS itself changes the meaning of an RDF/XML document.
16:31:32 <gtw> ktk: Another aspect - I would like to test how parsers behave.
16:31:47 <gtw> ... they compared with web stack. we've seen how hard it was for a while to move forward with web stack.
16:31:51 <gtw> ... IE burned everyone on that.
16:32:03 <gtw> ... it's a different thing. This is not baked in in a browser.
16:32:11 <gtw> ... this are individual libraries for doing work with RDF.
16:32:43 <gtw> ... my parser for a long time was rapper/raptor. Never supported json-ld, for example. So I moved forward to other tools.
16:32:51 <gtw> ... you're not stuck with whatever browser the company gives you.
16:33:08 <gtw> ora: would it make sense for us to concoct an example that demostrates some of this bad behavior?
16:33:18 <gtw> ... or should we ask TAG to prove us wrong and give us an example?
16:33:37 <gtw> AndyS: I think that would be a good idea. Start with RDF 1.2 not using 1.2 features, does not change 1.1.
16:33:43 <gtw> ... it is claimed in TAG mintues that it does make a change.
16:34:01 <gtw> ... I don't think we share strong common technical ground with the people doing the review.
16:34:04 <niklasl> +1 to that (no change of meaning)
16:34:20 <gtw> ora: pick this up in chairs meeting.
16:34:37 <gtw> ktk: I will send AndyS the dates. If anyone else wants to join, let us know.
16:35:04 <gtw> ... pchampin and I already had ideas on how to make weird input, provoke some errors. We will work on that.
16:35:19 <gtw> ... I'm really talking about usual suspects.
16:35:36 <gtw> AndyS: this is 5 years old. The community that's actually on the web have seen it for a long time and are expecting it.
16:35:43 <gtw> ... it's not something we're springing on people.
16:36:00 <gtw> ora: this would be a benefit of working in public.
16:36:20 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:36:20 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Review of open PRs, available at -> 5 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:36:52 <gtw> ora: AndyS , you said there's a PR to fix a bug in N-Triples?
16:37:05 <gtw> AndyS: in rdf-tests. On Windows, it will fail.
16:37:23 <gtw> ... or it should fail. Because the N-Triples tests include canonicalization. We aren't changing line endings.
16:37:44 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/pull/316
16:37:44 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/issues/316 -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/pull/316
16:37:51 <pfps> Well if you use broken software ...
16:38:10 <gtw> ... PR covers two things. Extended test to cover langtags better. And I put that into Jena and got reports back from users on Windows.
16:38:42 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:38:47 <Souri> present+
16:38:50 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/pull/316/changes/269bbed754543205a40cf67dfb51a00ed6eedab8
16:38:50 <gtw> ... already got approvals for the first half.
16:40:17 <gtw> ora: rdf-xml ORCID IDs?
16:40:22 <gtw> j22: that's ready to go. I can add it.
16:40:28 <pfps> q+
16:40:58 <gtw> pfps: there's a couple of us working on SPARQL entailment. moving from 1.0 to 1.1.
16:41:03 <gtw> .. there's a PR to change URI refs to IRIs.
16:41:13 <gtw> ora: please merge it.
16:41:26 <gtw> pfps: everywhere in SPARQL, we should change URIs to IRIs.
16:41:48 <gtw> AndyS: The rest of the web community is going around changing IRIs to URIs saying they're the same thing.
16:41:56 <gtw> pfps: all RDF docs say IRIs. Need to match that.
16:41:59 <ora> ack pfps
16:42:16 <gtw> AndyS: your PR on sparql-query has a couple of editorial things.
16:42:34 <gtw> w3c/sparql-query#368
16:42:36 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/pull/368 -> Pull Request 368 change equivalent to renaming blank nodes in scoping graph definition (by pfps)
16:42:49 <gtw> pfps: I thought I pulled everything.
16:42:55 <gtw> ... should I be merging it in?
16:43:05 <gtw> AndyS: there are suggested changes. If happy with them, pull those in.
16:43:23 <gtw> pfps: I'll do that.
16:44:24 <gtw> ora: Where are we with common files by reference? I need to review it.
16:44:37 <niklasl> q+
16:44:46 <ora> ack niklasl
16:44:52 <gtw> niklasl: I think a bunch have been merged already.
16:44:57 <gtw> ... merge at will.
16:45:15 <gtw> ora: we have it in a lot of specs. that would be great to merge.
16:45:36 <gtw> AndyS: i18n input?
16:45:44 <gtw> ... comments on Turtle.
16:46:07 <gtw> ktk: the ones linked in your issue?
16:46:17 <gtw> AndyS: I'm not sure if they're official or not. Just appeared as issues.
16:46:22 <gtw> ... they are marked "i18n"
16:46:44 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/130
16:46:46 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/130 -> Issue 130 Unicode escape sequences (by xfq) [i18n-needs-resolution]
16:46:50 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/131
16:46:51 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/131 -> Issue 131 The `\u` escape range in Section 6.4 (by xfq) [i18n-needs-resolution]
16:47:10 <gtw> AndyS: point out errata which I think have been addressed.
16:47:18 <gtw> ... they also have higher level requests.
16:47:43 <gtw> ora: what are they asking?
16:47:59 <gtw> AndyS: in #130, they are asking for a new escape sequence form
16:48:00 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130 -> CLOSED Issue 130 vocabulary to refer to the individual nodes in a reified triple term (by rat10)
16:48:13 <gtw> ... based on convenience, not on future-proofing.
16:48:41 <gtw> ora: this would mean messing with the Turtle EBNF?
16:48:55 <gtw> AndyS: Yes. Also that you could write something with 1.1 meanign/semantics in a new way.
16:49:30 <pfps> q+
16:49:46 <gtw> ktk: this would be a major and not a minor change?
16:49:58 <gtw> AndyS: I think you could put it like that. I don't think it's a good idea.
16:50:07 <gtw> ... with a clean slate, yes, better. But now we'd have two ways of writing things.
16:50:12 <gtw> ... which is something they say not to do.
16:50:41 <gtw> ... if we were making other changes in the same area, maybe. But we're not.
16:50:48 <ora> ack pfps
16:51:07 <gtw> pfps: I'm confused here. They want RDF strings to contain unpaired surrogates?
16:51:14 <gtw> AndyS: you're looking at the other issue, but yes.
16:51:18 <gtw> pfps: that seems bonkers.
16:51:23 <j22> +1
16:51:51 <gtw> AndyS: if we've moved on to that one, I have no idea how you would implement that. It's not legal. You can't just convert the escape sequence into a surrogate.
16:51:56 <gtw> ... in utf8, surrogates are illegal.
16:52:11 <gtw> pfps: rdf strings to utf8, and now I have illegal utf8 in my computer.
16:52:21 <gtw> AndyS: you'd have to re-implement string.
16:52:28 <gtw> pfps: any place that accepts an RDF string.
16:52:38 <gtw> AndyS: I don't understand why they want this.
16:52:51 <Souri> +1 to not supporting \u{H…H}
16:53:21 <gtw> ktk: I would bring up that this is a major patch. We are in a minor revision.
16:53:46 <gtw> AndyS: re: surrogates, I don't understand why they'd want to encourage bad data.
16:54:05 <lisp> q+
16:54:09 <gtw> ... data is more transient on the web. between server and client. maybe a sense that you can fix things more easily. but different for published data.
16:54:14 <gtw> ora: who is this?
16:54:18 <gtw> AndyS: lead on i18n, I think.
16:54:22 <ora> ack lisp
16:54:47 <gtw> lisp: I'm confused. Recommendation that things be unicode strings. And somebody asking that you have a string which is not unicode.
16:54:59 <gtw> ... not allowed unpaired surrogates (?)
16:55:09 <gtw> AndyS: stonger than that. No surrogates at all.
16:55:35 <gtw> lisp: 1.1 conformance section on "Unicode string".
16:56:03 <gtw> AndyS: 1.1 has problems. "Unicode string" has no meaning. Reflects the byte-level. It is dependent on the encoding. Not the abstract sequence of scalar values.
16:56:24 <gtw> ... there's a test in the 1.1 test suite that shows if you put a surrogate in the string, it's a parse error.
16:56:31 <gtw> ... but that's no in the spec.
16:57:07 <gtw> ora: could we say we really like the comment that Martin Duerst left, and just go with that?
16:57:10 <gtw> pfps: works for me.
16:57:36 <gtw> ora: I'll put a comment there.
16:57:54 <gtw> AndyS: let them reply. if after a week…
16:58:01 <gtw> ... they're talking about GSP, which just doesn't work.
16:58:10 <gtw> ora: I'm commenting right now.
16:58:30 <gtw> ... we'll wait for reply.
16:58:40 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:58:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/09-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
16:58:53 <gtw> AndyS: for the other one on escape sequence, shall I reply saying WG feels impact on existing 1.1 data is too much?
16:59:33 <gtw> TallTed: \u{} form limits you to 6 digits.
16:59:42 <gtw> AndyS: unicode only needs six digits.
16:59:58 <gtw> ... difference between what you can encode and what is actually defined in unicode.
17:00:11 <gtw> ... everything above 10FFFF is undefined.
17:14:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/09-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:49:58 <TallTed> Zakim, end meeting
17:49:58 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ktk, AndyS, gtw, j, Souri, ora, lisp, pfps, niklasl, enrico, olaf, tl, AZ, doerthe, william-vw
17:50:00 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:50:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/09-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim
17:50:07 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, TallTed; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:50:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
17:50:13 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
17:50:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items