Meeting minutes
Approval of last week’s minutes: 1
ora: Comments on the minutes?
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes from 2026-05-14
<ora> +1
<pchampin> +1
<niklasl> +1
<ktk> +1
<Dominik_T> +1
<gtw> +1
<tl> +1
<lisp> +1
<olaf> +0 (didn't attend)
<Souri> +0 (did not attend)
<AndyS> +1
<Tpt> +0 (didn't attend)
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes from 2026-05-14
Review of open actions, available at 2
niklasl: A separate topic for "Create note on triple term owlification" would be good, ideally with Enrico in the call
ora: I contacted ISWC organizers, have not heard back yet
Review of open PRs, available at 3
<AndyS> w3c/
<Dominik_T> w3c/
<AndyS> w3c/
pchampin: do we really need the content-length on that? The PR itself makes sense otherwise
gtw: merging is fine, it cleans up existing code. But I'll create a PR that cleans this up.
AndyS: no content-length would be safer
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: maybe we should remove that section and move the definition of quads to N-Quads. If we leave it in RDF Concepts, we should have a warning that the definition of quad and dataset (a default graph with a collection of named graphs) is not the same
AndyS: maybe we could talk about quads, instead of saying dataset is a set of quads
… I'm also not sure if something in a non-normative section is helpful.
ora: should we revise that?
pchampin: I'll adjust the PR
ktk: do we have tests for the new text-direction?
<niklasl> https://
AndyS: as far as I can see there are no tests on SPARQL for text direction.
… sorry there are
AndyS: if someone could contribute for syntax, that would be great.
pchampin: What's the policy for adding new tests if they are compliant with something that a SPARQL 1.1 processor should do.
Tpt: If the test is covering something that is well-specified in SPARQL 1.1, it should be there. If it is something that was clarified for SPARQL 1.2, it should be there.
ora: I agree.
<ora> w3c/
Tpt: I can't remember on what it was blocked, I could try to rebase them.
… I remember discussing with AndyS some styling details.
ora: let's start next week with a working meeting where we go through PRs
Identifying issues to solve before CR 4
pchampin: I checked HR tracker for Turtle/Quad/Trig... we never finished them and submitted them to the TAG
… we should ping the TAG once we completely addressed the issues on N-Quads
… We should do that in the chairs-meeting.
… We did not do that for the TAG.
ora: how about w3c/
niklasl: I think pchampin wanted to take care of that.
pchampin: I think it's about TAG concerns
… it's part of that addressing that we just talked about
ora: where are we with implementation reports?
AndyS: is the formal request not part of CR?
pchampin: it is
AndyS: do we want the report of everything or per document?
ora: what's the policy from W3C on implementation reports?
pchampin: not strictly codified, it's up to us as well
ora: should we advertise?
AndyS: we didn't sort out all tests yet. I would propose to do it all at once.
<pchampin> AndyS, by "everything at once", I assume you mean "everything RDF"...
<pchampin> ... not RDF+SPARQL
AndyS: how about we set a date and work for that (for everything except SPARQL)
ora: how about we work on the tests next week.
niklasl: we can timebox the owl-ification to 10-15 mins so we have additional time
pchampin: if we want that, we have to work on RDF/XML
… we need to work out something for RDF Schema as well.
… We don't have any tests for RDF Concepts as well. We said we have the tests for RDF Semantics and at least one serialization.
… I need to dig out how the previous WGs did that.
… Maybe the process was not as strict in those days, I'll check.
AndyS: I don't think there was anything specific for RDF Schema. I'm not sure what implementing this even means.
… Maybe it means review instead of execute.
pchampin: DCAT showed that it's used among different organizations, that's how they managed that.
… Maybe demonstrating is "implementation of". I'll need to think about this and consult with Ivan Herman
… We will need a story for RDF Schema as well for implementation.
<pchampin> I think it is under RDF Semantics
niklasl: Are the axioms that the RDF representation contains, are they in the document. I'm thinking whether or not could the tests do something.
Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
<niklasl> highlightjs/
<niklasl> https://
niklasl: when I wrote the OWL note, I added syntax highlighting to some of the sections. I tried to use the existing highlighter. I did a fork based on the original code.
<niklasl> Some highlighted examples: https://
niklasl: It's static markup once the documents are snapshotted.
ora: it would be great to have that in our documents.
Tpt: how much do we want to follow ReSpec style? We have a lot of styling for tables & do not respect the styling for tables. Same for some boxes used.
<niklasl> +1 to Tpt's question
AndyS: SPARQL spec needs an end-to-end restyling.
… If someone could look at that this would be very good. Styling is currently old-fashioned and clunky.
… I wouldn't spend too much time on color coding, this is not part of the spec.
Tpt: I agree.
niklasl: I tend to agree, ReSpec highlighter does not support SPARQL & Turtle highlighters.
AndyS: I mean not using styling for SPARQL examples, just plain. Color does not have any meaning to it.