15:50:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:50:58 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/06/25-rdf-star-irc
15:50:58 <AndyS> zakim, start meeting
15:50:58 <AndyS> meeting: RDF and SPARQL Working Group
15:50:58 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:50:59 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), AndyS
15:51:10 <AndyS> meeting: RDF and SPARQL Working Group
15:51:28 <AndyS> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:51:28 <AndyS> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/07/02-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:51:28 <AndyS> rrsagent, make logs public
15:52:02 <AndyS> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/11e4d020-9c58-4fff-83c5-37c9e2502295/20260625T120000/#agenda
15:52:02 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:52:02 <agendabot> agenda+ RDF & SPARQL 1.2 "What is new" stable URL
15:52:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Vote about OWLification document -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/150
15:52:02 <agendabot> agenda+ SPARQL Issue Triage -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/5
15:52:03 <agendabot> agenda+ Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
15:52:15 <AndyS> rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:52:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/25-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS
15:52:33 <rubensworks> rubensworks has joined #rdf-star
15:52:48 <AndyS> present+
15:54:37 <ktk> present+
15:55:05 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
15:55:11 <ktk> regrets+ ora, fsasaki, j22, william-vw
15:57:40 <draggett> draggett has joined #rdf-star
15:59:11 <lisp> lisp has joined #rdf-star
15:59:14 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
15:59:31 <gtw> present+
16:00:13 <TallTed> present+
16:00:20 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:00:26 <niklasl> present+
16:00:35 <rubensworks> present+
16:00:56 <lisp> present+
16:00:57 <pchampin> present+
16:01:20 <Tpt> present+
16:01:35 <pfps> present+
16:01:54 <ktk> scribe: draggett:
16:01:56 <ktk> scribe: draggett
16:02:16 <ktk> Zakim, open item 1
16:02:16 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- RDF & SPARQL 1.2 "What is new" stable URL -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:02:18 <draggett> present+
16:02:29 <AndyS> chair: ktk
16:02:29 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:02:31 <tl> present+
16:02:37 <olaf> present+
16:03:25 <draggett> pchampin: we've been asked to provide a stable URL for our draft
16:03:44 <ktk> q?
16:03:50 <draggett> Topic: RDF & SPARQL 1.2 "What is new" stable URL
16:03:51 <AndyS> +1
16:04:01 <pfps> seems reasonable
16:04:09 <ktk> q?
16:04:10 <niklasl> +1
16:04:20 <draggett> [no objections]
16:04:21 <olaf> +1
16:04:41 <draggett> pchampin: we probably need a WG decision
16:05:09 <pchampin> PROPOSAL: publish rdf12-new as a WG Note Draft
16:05:11 <draggett> TallTed: we don't need +1
16:05:22 <draggett> ... for this
16:05:32 <ktk> RESOLUTION: publish rdf12-new as a WG Note Draft
16:05:33 <draggett> Adian asks pchampin to draft a resolution
16:05:41 <tl> q+
16:06:01 <pchampin> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-new/spec/
16:06:19 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:06:23 <Souri> present+
16:06:45 <draggett> Adrian: does this require one or two documents?
16:07:08 <AndyS> q+
16:07:24 <ktk> ack tl
16:07:25 <draggett> pchampin: good question. The SPARQL document is at a very early stage, bare bones right now.
16:07:44 <olaf> s/Adian/ktk/
16:07:48 <draggett> Consensus requires more than no objectsions
16:08:03 <olaf> s/Adrian:/ktk:/
16:08:08 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:08:15 <doerthe> present+
16:08:29 <draggett> TallTed: if we were arguing about the content of the document that would matter, but for now we just need documents we can point to
16:09:10 <AndyS> ack me
16:09:13 <draggett> AndyS: we could argue that there is only one document to point to
16:09:21 <pchampin> q+
16:09:30 <ktk> ack pchampin
16:09:53 <tl> +1 to only one document
16:09:55 <draggett> pchampin: I don't have a strong opinion right now. We could decide that all new SPARQL features belong in RDF-new
16:10:16 <draggett> Adrian: we can defer that decision
16:10:28 <TallTed> q+
16:10:46 <draggett> AndyS: we need to decide right now in respect to what URLs to provide
16:11:29 <ktk> ack TallTed
16:11:49 <pchampin> note that there is currently no sparql-new spec, so we do not break any expectation in that respect
16:11:58 <pchampin> (on TR I mean)
16:11:58 <draggett> TallTed: we have a good number of documents .... I doubt that anyone will only implement SPARQL. We just need to make decision and I would prefer one for SPARQL and one for RDF
16:12:16 <tl> i retract my "+1 to only one document" and agree with ted
16:12:32 <niklasl> Makes sense to me (two).
16:12:35 <draggett> Adrian: any objections to having two URLs?
16:12:42 <draggett> [no]
16:13:13 <draggett> ... asks pchampin to draft a resolution
16:13:22 <pchampin> PROPOSED: publish sparql12-new as a WG Note Draft https://w3c.github.io/sparql-new/spec/
16:13:43 <ktk> q?
16:13:50 <ktk> +1
16:13:51 <niklasl> +1
16:13:52 <gtw> +1
16:13:52 <TallTed> datestamped will be needed for stable *content* ... so there is small question whether they want stable *content* or stable *evolving*
16:13:52 <pchampin> +1
16:13:53 <rubensworks> +1
16:13:53 <Souri> +1
16:13:54 <AndyS> +1
16:13:55 <tl> +1
16:13:56 <doerthe> +1
16:13:57 <TallTed> +1
16:13:57 <olaf> +1
16:13:59 <Tpt> +
16:14:04 <Tpt> +1
16:14:07 <lisp> +1
16:14:21 <ktk> RESOLUTION: publish sparql12-new as a WG Note Draft
16:14:54 <TallTed> s|RESOLUTION: publish sparql12-new as a WG Note Draft|RESOLUTION: publish sparql12-new as a WG Note Draft https://w3c.github.io/sparql-new/spec/
16:14:55 <draggett> pchampin agrees to publish the draft accordingly
16:15:01 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:15:01 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Vote about OWLification document -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/150 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:15:11 <tl> q+
16:16:34 <draggett> niklasl: this was a NOTE I created based upon discussions quite some time ago around expressing triple terms in respect to RDFS
16:17:10 <draggett> .... explains further details
16:17:25 <draggett> This could become a WG Note
16:17:44 <draggett> Adrian: this stays as a separate document, right?
16:17:47 <draggett> niklasl: yes
16:18:20 <draggett> tl: I am unhappy about the way it talks about literals
16:18:24 <ktk> ack tl
16:18:31 <niklasl> q+
16:19:12 <pfps> q+
16:19:19 <draggett> ... it becomes like text, but triple terms are not text
16:19:34 <draggett> ... I can't subscribe to this
16:19:59 <pfps> q-
16:20:20 <pfps> q+
16:20:43 <draggett> Adrian: for now we shouldn't talk about the content, rather creating a WG Note
16:20:57 <draggett> tl: okay, I am not against creating a Note
16:21:40 <ktk> q?
16:21:40 <TallTed> Is the doc in a repo? or other collaborative editing space?
16:21:41 <ktk> ack niklasl
16:21:50 <tl> q+
16:21:51 <draggett> niklasl: there is no place in the document that says that propositions are literals. I can improve the clarity of the account though
16:22:16 <pfps> what document is this?
16:22:20 <draggett> tl points to the wording he finds problematic
16:22:23 <TallTed> q+ to ask that the doc go into a repo or other collaborative editing space for further refinement?
16:22:40 <niklasl> https://niklasl.github.io/rdf-struct-patterns/spec/
16:22:59 <ktk> ack tl
16:23:14 <TallTed> given that we're now producing a WG NOTE, can that migrate to a WG repo?
16:23:18 <draggett> niklasl: we can discuss the wording in github issues
16:23:31 <doerthe> https://niklasl.github.io/rdf-struct-patterns/spec/#properties-of-formal-structures
16:23:40 <draggett> pfps: what document and what paragraph are we talking about?
16:23:58 <draggett> niklasl: paragraph 3 in section 3
16:24:03 <ktk> ack pfps
16:24:39 <ktk> ack TallTed
16:24:39 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to ask that the doc go into a repo or other collaborative editing space for further refinement?
16:24:54 <pchampin> q+
16:24:55 <draggett> TallTed: given we've agreed that this becomes a WG Note, it should be moved to the WG repo
16:25:11 <pfps> I still don't see what the issue is.
16:25:48 <draggett> pchampin: [staff contact hat on] we already have several WG Notes, and worry that we don't dilute our efforts
16:25:50 <doerthe> Thomas was referring to the sentence "This is not necessary for propositions and literal values, since their meaning is completely encoded by their corresponding terms—ground triple terms and literals—in the abstract syntax.", for the exact problem you need to ask him
16:25:57 <ktk> q?
16:26:04 <ktk> ack pchampin
16:26:07 <niklasl> q+
16:26:14 <ktk> ack niklasl
16:26:29 <draggett> niklasl: I sympathise with pchampin's concern
16:26:32 <TallTed> s/should be moved to the WG repo/should be moved to a WG repo/
16:27:09 <draggett> ... and working first on high priority documents
16:27:10 <pfps> I'm still completely confused about the argument, which appears to be "X and Y are stated to share some characteristics therefore X and Y are the same".
16:27:16 <tl> q+
16:27:26 <ktk> ack tl
16:27:52 <draggett> tl: the name shouldn't be too abstract
16:28:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/25-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:28:09 <draggett> niklasl: we can change it later as we see fit
16:28:18 <ktk>  Create a note on "RDF 1.2 Properties of Formal Structures" (working title)
16:29:05 <draggett> pchampin: the name isn't critical, what is important is to bring the document to a WG repo
16:29:19 <pchampin> PROPOSED: the WG adopts https://github.com/niklasl/rdf-struct-patterns/ for future publication as a WG Note
16:29:27 <rubensworks> rubensworks has joined #rdf-star
16:29:35 <ktk> +1
16:29:36 <niklasl> +1
16:29:37 <Souri> +1
16:29:38 <pfps> +0
16:29:38 <tl> +1
16:29:39 <pchampin> +0.5
16:29:39 <TallTed> +1
16:29:41 <lisp> +1
16:29:41 <AndyS> +1
16:29:44 <olaf> +1
16:29:45 <gtw> +1
16:29:50 <doerthe> +1
16:30:03 <ktk> RESOLUTION: Tthe WG adopts https://github.com/niklasl/rdf-struct-patterns/ for future publication as a WG Note
16:30:07 <Tpt> +0.7 (sounds like a good idea in absolute but I have not read it)
16:30:20 <ktk> s/Tthe/The/
16:30:45 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:30:45 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- SPARQL Issue Triage -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/5 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:31:19 <ktk> q?
16:31:20 <pfps> Just sort the display by Repository
16:31:37 <draggett> Adrian: I tried to find a summary but failed. Let's open the discussion.
16:32:15 <draggett> It is unrealistic to go through all the SPARQL issues in the time we have.
16:32:48 <draggett> It is very likely that SPARQL will become a living spec. What is needed in the short term?
16:32:51 <AndyS> q+
16:32:54 <Tpt> q+
16:32:56 <ktk> ack AndyS
16:33:39 <draggett> AndyS: these are personal ideas: there are a few critical issues we should address (talks us through them)
16:33:56 <draggett> These are all in the main spec
16:34:02 <ktk> ack Tpt
16:34:20 <TallTed> q+
16:34:51 <Tpt> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/326
16:34:52 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/326 -> Issue 326 Remaining erratas and errata-like issues (by Tpt)
16:34:55 <draggett> ThomasT: I agree with AndyS that are a few big issues to fix and some others we would like to deal with
16:35:06 <ktk> ack TallTed
16:35:19 <AndyS>   https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/pull/355
16:35:20 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/pull/355 -> Pull Request 355 Syntax scope requirements for (NOT)EXISTS (by afs)
16:35:20 <draggett> TallTed asks AndyS to share the links to the critical issues
16:35:28 <AndyS>     https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/pull/355
16:36:29 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/pull/327
16:36:30 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/pull/327 -> Pull Request 327 Clarify that unaggregated variables in SELECT raise an error (by Tpt) [spec:bug]
16:36:48 <AndyS> q?
16:38:18 <draggett> gtw: I agree with AndyS
16:38:33 <olaf> q+
16:38:38 <ktk> ack olaf
16:39:11 <draggett> olaf: I also started working on a PR relating to property terms
16:39:34 <TallTed> s/Topic: RDF & SPARQL 1.2 "What is new" stable URL//
16:40:08 <olaf> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/pull/396
16:40:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/25-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:40:16 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/pull/396 -> Pull Request 396 Evaluation of property path patterns that contain triple patterns (by hartig)
16:40:27 <draggett> Adrian: please make a comment
16:40:48 <rubensworks> q+
16:40:53 <draggett> AndyS: anybody with write access can edit the document
16:41:00 <rubensworks> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/53
16:41:01 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/53 -> Issue 53 Incorporate RDF-star CG report (by rubensworks) [spec:substantive]
16:41:01 <ktk> ack rubensworks
16:41:34 <draggett> rubensworks: most of this was discussed some time ago, we can review that
16:42:01 <draggett> Adrian: any implementor's feedback?
16:42:20 <TallTed> I have nothing to flag at this point
16:43:00 <ktk> q?
16:43:07 <draggett> james: nothing I would object to (earlier than the last 2 weeks which I haven't looked at)
16:43:07 <Tpt> q+
16:43:29 <draggett> Adrian: let's use Thomas's issue as the main one to work on
16:43:31 <Souri> Will { ?x :p1/:p2 ?y } ever have any match if the only triple with :p1 as predicate has a triple term as object? EXAMPLE=> :bob :thinks <<( :alice :likes :bob )>> .
16:44:01 <ktk> ack Tpt
16:44:21 <draggett> Adrian: we should give everyone a chance to look at this
16:45:02 <ktk> q?
16:45:24 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:45:24 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:45:34 <pchampin> q+
16:45:38 <ktk> ack pchampin
16:46:33 <draggett> pchampin: I wanted to inform the WG that I heard back from the TAG in respect to MIME types, they have been looking at the PR and I will chat with the staff contact for the TAG
16:47:26 <draggett> Adrian: i've heard from the ISWC re the joint session which looks good
16:47:58 <gtw> is that question any different than a question about literals?
16:48:47 <draggett> Adrian wrap the meeting up ...
16:49:00 <draggett> rrsagent, make minutes
16:49:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/25-rdf-star-minutes.html draggett
16:50:09 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
16:52:11 <rubenswo_> rubenswo_ has joined #rdf-star