Meeting minutes
ora: I contacted Valentina Tamma, general chair of ISWC 2026
… she thinks that a joint session between TPAC and the RDF group would be good
… on 26 October 2026 on the workshop day
… it would be considered as a workshop in the conference
… we should give her a couple of timeslots to work on the programme
RDF Semantics feedback from the mailing list 1 2 3 agendabot]
ktk: the deadline for TPAC is next week so we must give feedback before
ora: pchampin, you sent something to Michael Schneider?
pchampin: the first message was already addressed
<ktk> PRs mentioned by Enrico: w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 198 Michael Schneider's feedback (Part 2) on RDF-Semantics (by franconi) [Errata] [ms:REC]
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 199 Michael Schneider's feedback (Part 3) on RDF-Semantics (by franconi) [Errata] [ms:REC]
pfps: there is already a PR that already address all 3 of them thanks to Enrico
… in RDF 1.2 Semantics we should see a PR for Part 2, and
… Part 1 is merged
… I don't know if there are official email responses yet
… Enrico has issues with Part 2 and Part 3
<pfps> w3c/
<gb> Issue 196 Michael Schneider's feedback (Part 2) on RDF-Semantics (by franconi) [Errata] [ms:REC]
pfps: there hasn't been an official response yet [by the working group]
pchampin: responding to the email with a pointer to the PR would be adequate
… although not all people have Github accounts
<pchampin> to be clear: I was suggesting to point them to the PRs *on the mailing list*, and let them respond where they see fit (GH or ML)
pfps: somebody could already response to Part 1 which is already merged
… I can try to do it
TallTed: Enrico already replied to the last email
ora: do we need to discuss Part 2 and Part 3?
pfps: Enrico responded to the email on Part 3 explaining that Part 1 is done, and that we would not do anything on Part 3
Threat Modeling Next Steps
pfps: so the ball is in his [Michael's] court
<pfps> https://
pfps: there is also a comment on Concepts from Michael Schneider
pchampin: I made a PR to address the comment on Concepts
… I responded with an email already
pfps: Michael is happy with the Concepts comments
ora: what do we do with the threat modelling? Updating the diagram?
… we decided for the syntax changes
… AndyS, will you make the changes to SPARQL syntax?
AndyS: that's all done now
ktk: on the threat modelling, the idea is to have what we have already in the documents and align it and present it to the security people
pchampin: from the discussion with the CG, this kind of things is never finished, so we won't have a final thing
… we will refactor the security consideration that we have in the document but we will not make something original
… I will work on this but not done yet
ktk: do you mean we will have a threat modelling document and documents pointing to it
pchampin: we will have sections pointing to the threat modelling document, shouldn't imply much change
AndyS: how much do we need to write? we don't have descriptions of actors of the threat. We should keep it short
… a diagram and a few sentences
pchampin: the conclusion from the meeting is that the current diagram is very broad and ambitious
… we could project the diagram to different parts as sub-diagrams
Horizontal Reviews Status 4
ktk: we were supposed to submit something but not done yet
… we quickly go through the reviews
ktk: first is n-triples
<gb> Issue 79 Horizontal Reviews tracker for N-Triples (by pchampin) [ms:CR]
<pchampin> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 107 implement TAG recommendation about error handling (by pchampin) [spec:substantive]
pchampin: this one has approval from Dominik_T and AndyS
… there is no breaking changes
… once this is merged, we can go back to TAG. Or we point them to the PR before merge?
ora: maybe this is easier for them
… do we have 2 reviews for that?
… let us point the TAG to this PR and when we have feedback we can merge
pchampin: I am happy to do it
ktk: the Security one is open because of the threat modelling issue
ktk: that's it for n-triples
ktk: next one is Turtle
<gb> Issue 127 Horizontal Reviews tracker for RDF Turtle (by pchampin) [ms:CR]
AndyS: there's something from i18n
pchampin: we can ping them and maybe then timeout
… we need to wait for the TAG so we still have some time, but could be quick
<AndyS> w3c/
<gb> Issue 131 The `\u` escape range in Section 6.4 (by xfq) [i18n-needs-resolution] [propose closing]
AndyS: the issue for several documents
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 303 rdf12-n-quads 2026-03-22 > 2026-04-24 (by ktk) [REVIEW REQUESTED] [LC]
ktk: is 131 the same as 303 [link above] ?
ktk: do we have to react on that?
pchampin: the first one we address the second one is just a comment
AndyS: we could close some of our issues that are duplicates
ktk: n-quads privacy ok, security we discussed,
… no update for TriG
… that's all
… what's the status of RDF/XML?
<j22> The RDF/XML is progressing but is not ready for submitting. A section on rdf:version needs to be added and that is still in early draft
ktk: what would be the next target?
ora: what have we still got before we move on to SPARQL
pchampin: we have RDF Schema (REC track) and RDF New (Note)
Dominik_T: RDF Schema is ready to submit
… no issues during the last week, it must be quite finished
ora: in the REC track, apart from SPARQL specs, we have nothing else (+ some notes)
pchampin: we can start horizontal review for RDF Schema
… let us have internal reviews for it
ktk: to summarise, I still have to do the TAG's comments
… I missed the second batch about trig, turtle and n-quads, to submit to the TAG
… and need to ping the specific groups for update
… and if we don't get anything, we move on
Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
ora: related to ISWC/TPAC
… who is going to attend what?
<ora> STRAWPOLL: Are you attending TPAC (in-person or virtually), ISWC, or none. Vote tpac/virtual/iswc/none
<pchampin> TPAC in person
<ora> iswc
<j22> none/semantics
ISWC in person (hopefully)
<Dominik_T> ISWC for 50%
<gtw> none
<pfps> ISWC, will attend TPAC session if it does not conflict with Wikidata Workshop
<william-vw> none
<ktk> virtually (probably in Asia)
<Souri> none
<AndyS> From TPAC - with a mild preference for Monday PM
<niklasl> possibly TPAC
<TallTed> remote to whichever may provide it and call me :-)
<doerthe> possibly iswc
pfps: try not to have the TPAC/ISWC session conflict with Wikidata workshop
<Zakim> gtw, you wanted to ask AOB issue on several of the documents
gtw: in all of format documents, we have a media type section
… is there a W3C policy to whether we can get rid of the MAC piece that noone is using
AndyS: I think we should remove it, it's outdated
<Dominik_T> +1
gtw: removing this part from the spec would not prevent one from using a Mac OS 9 system to do its job
gtw: I'm happy to propose PRs to address this
<TallTed> again, no objection to removing this note from our specs
ora: anything else?
<Dominik_T> I already mentioned earlier my work on a Turtle-like implementation for RDF 1.2, and a related paper has recently appeared here: https://
pchampin: the faster we plan the ISWC/TPAC, the more likely we can get the good slot
… we should tell ISWC organisers our constraints
ora: our constraints/preferences are Monday afternoon and avoid conflict with Wikidata workshop
AndyS: last year, Wikidata workshop was all day, wasn't it?
ora: how long do we want to have our session take?
<pfps> the Wikidata Workshop is likely to be all day
pchampin: it really depends on the working group
… for us, half a day may be enough, for other groups, it can last 3 days
AndyS: the primary objective may be outward communication, so half day would be enough
ora: we're adjourned