Meeting minutes
Horizontal Reviews Tracking & Followup
<ktk> https://
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 93 Horizontal Reviews tracker for RDF N-Quads (by pchampin) [ms:CR] [Tracking]
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 79 Horizontal Reviews tracker for N-Triples (by pchampin) [ms:CR] [Tracking]
pchampin: we might ping them again
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> CLOSED Issue 138 rdf12-n-triples 2025-11-25 > 2025-12-23 (by ktk) [LC] [REVIEW REQUESTED] [pending] [s:rdf12-n-triples]
ktk: we should go through them and hint that they are very related
<ktk> w3c/
<gb> Issue 110 rdf12-n-triples 2025-11-25 > 2025-12-23 (by ktk) [REVIEW REQUESTED] [pending] [LC]
ktk: security is still open, maybe because we lack a threat model?
<ktk> w3ctag/
<gb> Issue 1161 WG New Spec: RDF 1.2 N-Triples (by pchampin) [Review type: horizontal review]
ktk: TAG is also still open
… should we ping the TAG again?
pchampin: will check with Yves and Sarven
ktk: no feedback from security group on n-triples since 10 months
pchampin: probably depending on a better worked out threat model doc (to be provided by us)
… it's editorial work, probably not hugely complicated, but needs time...
ktk: we have to do threat model and internationalization to make progress on these
… timeline for RDF/XML
… can we alerady have a timeline for SPARQL?
andys: didn't have much time b/o other wg's
ora: what are we still missing in broad strokes?
andys: exists, variables, a lot of errata
rubensworks: for SPARQL would it be an option to set a deadline, and what doesn't meet the deadine would go into future work?
andys: maybe triage ->maintenance
olaf: some formalization issues open, blank nodes being one of them
<lisp> tomorrow +1
andys: meeting tomorrow, and we can do some triage
Review of open PRs, available at 1
ora: moving on to PRs
… what about w3c/
niklasl: yes
ora: does anybody review it?
… otherwise i can just go ahead and [make this go away]
andys: what means "vendorize"?
niklasl: using some vendor-specific, non-standard stuff
… that stuff is MIT-licensed
ora: objections to merging this?
… not hearing any objections, so suggest you go ahead and merge it
niklasl: maybe will improve the example file
<olaf> w3c/
<gb> PR 410 Algebra: add an explicit "distinct" flag to Aggregation() (by Tpt)
olaf: ther is a PR w3c/
… which is only missing Greg's review
gtw: back from holiday, will take a look
ora: w3c/
<gb> PR 157 Move the reifiedTriple syntactic sugar explanation into the note (by domel)
andys: comment by pchampin from 43 minutes ago
ora: we'll wait for pchampin
… james, where are we with w3c/
<gb> PR 108 Undefined errors (by lisp)
ora: maybe redundant with n-triples?
lisp: if thesame text is amenable top all teh others i could add it there as well
ora: we approved n-triples, why wouldn't we use the same for all of these?
lisp: understood that to be the intent
andys: so we need to align the two texts
ora: james, can you make them all the same?
lisp: can do, will do
andys: needs care b/o TAG
<AndyS> w3c/
lisp: will replicate the changes to all files
andys: that comment (above) needs consideration first
ora: james, please connect with pchampin
lisp: will do
ora: w3c/
… niklas what's your take on it?
niklasl: think it can be merged
ora: a few test related PRs - any of them ready to merge?
andys: gtw, can you take a look at w3c/
<gb> PR 356 SPARQL: Set mf:specVersion on manifests and use IRIs (by Tpt)
gtw: will do
ora: what about w3c/
<gb> PR 324 manifest with rdf action model, revised with additional tests as per … (by lisp)
ora: greg, are you happy with this?
gtw: will have to have a look, seems big
lisp: is a side effect of a discussion in the SPARQL
… first version was generated by an LLM, later did let an LLM generate a requirements document and took that as input
… but the group should think about if/how LLMs can be used in the context of our work
… i made good experience with letting an LLM create requirements documents from specs
… that PR is just a result of such an approach
ora: are you saying that the discussion so far are only in the abstract?
lisp: yes
rubenworks: made soem changes
<rubensworks> w3c/
<gb> PR 366 Add collection point for RDF 1.2 implementation reports (by rubensworks)
andys: not comfortable with getting ahead to where W3C may go wrt LLMs
<TallTed> see Use of Large Language Models in Standards Work: W3C Group Note 24 March 2026
andys: the results are so depending on the prompt, they have too many inconsistencies, basing tests on them would add considerable risk
ora: can you give input to W3C
andys: maybe at TPAC
tallted: there is a related note (link above), just a couple of pages
… use of LLMs is neither blessed nor cursed
ktk: i do use it but i do see andy's point, but i also see james' point that there's only talk about talking about it. james, would you like to provide some input to the commitee?
lisp: would be easy for me to walk you through how 1.2 implementation was done, because it demonstrates a method which addresses one of andy's concerns and provides control
ktk: maybe we can have session where you demonstrate your approach?
ora: next week, this wg?
ktk: will put it on the agenda for next week
lisp: will be here
ora: maybe i'm a bit naive but i don't find this to be real rocket science
… except if your so naive to take the LLM output as fact
andys: exactly
ora: but you put _your_ name on it, not the LLM's output
tallted: very important that area experts control an LLM's output
lisp: key takeaway is that it's a search process and the quality of the result depends on the quality of the constraints the LLM is given
<TallTed> OpenLinkSoftware/