Meeting minutes
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 2
<pfps> minutes are acceptable (but last week's is not great)
<pchampin> I can fix that
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes from 2026-05-21 and 2026-05-28
<pfps> +0.5 (+1 with fix)
<niklasl> +1
<ora> +1
<fsasaki> +1
<doerthe> +1
<Souri> +1
<AndyS> +1
<william-vw> +1
<tl> +1
<ktk> +1
<gtw> +1
<lisp> +1
<olaf> +0 (didn't attend)
<Tpt> +1
<pchampin> +1
<TallTed> +1 for 5/28, +0 for 5/21
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes from 2026-05-21 and 2026-05-28
Feedback from Threat Modeling Plenary session
ktk: the meeting was a two hour discussion, quite academic at the beginning, explanation where we fit in, a lot of details
… in my opinion: it is as complicated as we make it, we should not try to make a threat model for the RDF as a whole
… so we should do it separated
pchampin: I agree with ktk, I had some more discussions afterwards within W3C, we should make it simple
… we should make diagrams much more focused
… goal should be to reframe what we already have into this new framework. I think that we could do a single document where we could all point to
AndyS: pchampin helped to keep the focus, there were 10 experts on the topic who were very interested in the details, we should still keep it simple
pchampin: the JSON-LD working group is also active, they will take care of json-ld. We will not have to tackle it. JSON-LD depends on external data
<pchampin> good to know, thanks :)
AndyS: the JSON-LD issue even comes up in automatic scans
TallTed: There is a push to align JSON-LD 1.2 with RDF and SPARQL 1.2. Version numbers do not line up
… maybe we could have a JSON 1.12 or similar and then later on align with RDF 1.2
… it was discussed in an issue
<pchampin> w3c/
pchampin: I am aware of the issue. It was a choice of the JSON-LD working group to not align yet
… it is not ideal, but it is not easy to align all version numbers, which is why they opted against it
ora: they have to state that there is no meaningful connection between version numbers
… next step?
pchampin: I will try to make more focused diagrams, help welcome
… I plan to do that in the coming weeks
ktk: I can review
Review of open actions, available at 3
TallTed: github has new views, maybe we can use that
pchampin: I added the comments, TallTed moved them to a visible place, we can use it
ora: I asked the ISWC (190) organizers but got no response so far
… I will ping them
<pchampin> reviews were due today, so yes, maybe ping them in a week or so :)
AndyS: I did 3 PRs (#190)
<gb> Action 190 email the ISWC organizers (on rdfguy) due 2026-05-21
Review of open PRs, available at 4
ora: let's talk about w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 20 the version published on GH pages must not be formatted as a DNOTE (by pchampin)
pchampin: pretty straightforward, I think we can merge
ora: w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 260 Beginning of manifest validations using SHACL (by Tpt)
ThomasTanon: I still need to finish it
ora: w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 296 More testing of triple terms in RDF/XML (by afs)
AndyS: we need a new policy for RDF-XML, here we need a decision
… same for w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 301 RDF/XML: add a test to make sure the parser fails on unknown rdf:parseType value (by Tpt)
ora: what does the spec say at the moment?
AndyS: unknown terms are parsed as RDF XML literals
… we need to discuss with jerven, to better know what to do
ora: w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 327 Clarify that unaggregated variables in SELECT raise an error (by Tpt) [spec:bug]
ora: what is preventing this from being merged?
AndyS: it is not clear what the spec says
… these are long-term issues we have to sort out, but maybe they do not have priority
ora: w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 275 add note about sets of quads vs. dataset (by pchampin)
pchampin: I updated it and it has less details now to avoid confusion
AndyS: can I get approvals for w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 383 GH-382: Move numeric escape sequences into the grammar (by afs)