– DRAFT –
RDF and SPARQL Working Group

Info on SPARQL-RL 1

AndyS: In the Shapes working group, they want to reorganize one of the working group documents to name one of their documents SPARQL-RL. This is a rule language that is SPARQL inspired.

AndyS: Naming discussion is tricky. SPARQL editors contacted. Other option had been RDF-rules

ktk: asks if something can be done if desired. pchampin: replies an objection can be made.

pfps: is very uncomfortable with naming something SPARQL that is not done by the SPARQL-WG.

AndyS: mentions that our charter regarding is quite limited, and it is a different WG

Tpt: has mixed feelings: good document but diverges from SPARQL and the import system as well.

<pfps> I was unaware of SPARQL Rules as an official W3C name.

AndyS: mentions that import in SHACL/SPARQL-RULES is risky regarding importing stuff from the web. (also owl imports)

<Tpt> draft: https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl12-rules/

AndyS: mentions that our charter regarding is quite limited, and it is a different WG

AndyS: explains some of the tradeoffs in rules languages also other options SWIG, N3 ...

pfps: what is the status of the SHACL/SPARQL-RULES

AndyS: explains some of the sims with SPARQL and some of the differences

TallTed: explains some history with shacl-af that this in the second shapes wg this shacl-af was a requirements document.

TallTed: explains that SPARQL-RULES as a requirement for the current SHACL WG.

TallTed: welcomes a better name. Please read all options.

pfps: thinks we could veto this

TallTed: formal objection road is open. He thinks it would pass

Sorry bad mike

AndyS: SRL is what is used in discussions

lisp: would this conflict with current or future work by this WG?

<pfps> I see a definite difference between SPARQL rules on one hand and SPARQL-Full and SPARQL-RL on the other hand. The former, particularly as used in 2017, refers to a particular use of SPARQL in rules. The latter appear to be variants of SPARQL.

AndyS: everything in SHACL-RULES can be implemented in SPARQL

<TallTed> More input on .srl --

<TallTed> https://www.abbreviations.com/SRL

<TallTed> https://www.acronymfinder.com/SRL.html

<TallTed> https://filext.com/file-extension/SRL

AndyS: searched for name using SPARQL-RL -> one hit that was a document separately mentioning SPARQL and RL.

<TallTed> have to search for `"sparql rl"` with quotes, rather than `sparql rl` without quotes

still bad mic,question already answered

Review of open PRs, available at 2

ktk: currently nothing can be done if desired by the WG. This is for W3C members

ktk: there was a discussion between chairs regarding triaging issues

ktk: chairs will propose what they think should be done

Nothing to be said about RDF/XML by j22

ktk: Dominik_T: where should we put EARL implementation reports?

ktk: Dominik_T: where should we put EARL implementation reports? Date should be enough to know which version of tests was used

This is discussion if w3c/rdf-tests#359 should be merged or not.

<gb> PR 359 Add rdf12conv N-Triples EARL implementation report (by domel) [report]

<niklasl> This issue was mentioned on 2026-07-09: w3c/rdf-star-wg#142

<gb> Issue 142 Implementation reports (by rubensworks) [enhancement] [needs discussion]

AndyS: suggests that PRs for now are fine, as these should be free standing documents. We can figure out what we are going to do later

pchampin: idea is to move tests to cg repo for when there is no wg.

<pchampin> https://www.w3.org/2026/07/09-rdf-star-minutes.html

pchampin: wg can endorse specific versions in the github repo but it can move to cg. implementation reports can be elsewhere.

pchampin: PR for implementation report can be in different spec repos

ktk: thinks closing is best. AndyS: thinks it is better to leave it open to avoid red icon

AndyS: thinks we should label it and ktk: is convinced to leave it open

<niklasl> +1 to leave it open (it seems easier to me, both for implementers and for discovering tools with support for something, to have tests and reports side-by-side)

pchampin: PR 280 he can resolve the git conflict and then merge it

<pfps> Where is "SPARQL-RULES as a requirement for the current SHACL WG" in its charter?

Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting

pfps: never mind

AndyS: has a W3C question regarding security questions. Is there a good reference to include as good material or boilerplate text? Document on the web can be evil etc.

<pchampin> https://www.w3.org/TR/threat-modeling-guide/#appendix-1-minimalist-threat-model-for-the-world-wide-web

pchampin: threatmodelling-cg has a new guide, with a minimal guide on the open web

pchampin: suggests citing one of these documents

<pchampin> https://www.w3.org/TR/threat-model-web/

end meeting