– DRAFT –
RDF & SPARQL WG

Discrepancy between Turtle and SPARQL

ora: will discuss discrepancy between turtle and sparql syntax

<niklasl> +1 to fix it

<j22> +1 as well

ora: suggest to look into how to fix the issues that pchampin described

(further discussions on what type of issues may appear)

ora: should for sure be addressed, this is all about interop

pchampion: meeting with thread modeling CG next week
… timely to discuss this matter

(discussions on how to move forward process wise)

<ora> PROPOSAL: Resolve discrepancy between SPARQL and Turtle syntaxes

<TallTed> +1

<niklasl> +1

<gtw> +1

<j22> +1

<rubensworks> +1

<fsasaki> +1

<ktk> +1

<TallTed> +1

<pchampin> +1

<tl> +1

<AndyS> +1

<ora> +1

<doerthe> +1

<Souri> +1

<lisp> +1

<AZ> +1

RESOLUTION: Resolve discrepancy between SPARQL and Turtle syntaxes

<Tpt> +1

<enrico> +1

discussing the how of resolving the discrepancy

ACTION: afs to make the change related to sparql and turtle syntax

<gb> Created action #193

Create a note on triple-term owlification 1

niklasl: main issue I had: in which direction should the current doc go?

<niklasl> https://niklasl.github.io/rdf-struct-patterns/spec/

niklasl: I think it should be a separate note

niklasl: would like to get input of people who want to help to improve the quality of the doc

ora: note vs. member submission is an interesting question
… member submission can be used to introduce s.t. for discussions
… but not sure if there is a difference for an uniformed audience.
… for me having this as a note would be fine

pchampin: the WG needs to decide if we want to endorse this as a note
… not everybody understands the difference between note and REC
… another option may be a CG report
… e.g. in rdf dev CG

ora: we will decide next week how to move forward

ora: will discuss on mailing list

<pchampin> alternatively, niklasl, you could host a static HTML rendered offline by Respec

<niklasl> pchampin Ah, yes; good option.

RDF tests work 2

<AndyS> w3c/rdf-tests#325

<gb> Pull Request 325 Align xml-canon to previous behavior (by afs)

AndyS: tests were changed from previous behaviour

rubenworks: tried to track down the reason for changes
… need to figure out why it was changed

ora: so removing the one allows to become compliant with the rest of the test

rubensworks: yes. if we revert the specific change we may need to modify other spec tests

ora: if we put this back, the tests with annotation syntax become a problem?

AndyS: yes

ora: still not sure why there is a problem if we take the tests back
… what is the bad thing if we removed the one item?

AndyS: Gregg Kellogg made the change

niklasl: there may be arguments from certain use cases that would lead to issues

rubensworks: have with reverting the change
… but it should come with a change in the rdf xml spec

AndyS: one cannot write the same RDF XML literal in a different document and inherit different namespaces
… it ends up with what happens with n-triples in the tests

<AndyS> w3c/rdf-xml#97

<gb> Issue 97 Clarification of rdf:XMLLiteral (by afs)

AndyS: for rubensworks there is an issue

pchampin: may be that my parser is incorrect, it parses the current test
… raises the question of namespace inheritance

enrico: got comments on RDF semantics doc
… pchampin improved the changes
… except for the first one

<pchampin> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2026May/0033.html

enrico: if everybody agrees I will merge the solution

ora: objections?

<enrico> That’s the PR w3c/rdf-semantics#195

<gb> Pull Request 195 Implementation of Michael Schneider's review on RDF-Semantics (by franconi) [Errata] [ms:REC]

no objections

ora: enrico, please go ahead