– DRAFT –
RDF and SPARQL Working Group

Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 2

<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes of last two weeks' meetings

<rubensworks> +1

<ora> +1

<Andy> +1

<lisp> +1

<Souri> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<pchampin> +1

<gtw> +1

<olaf> +1

<AZ> +0.5 (present at 1, absent at the other, fine for the one I was present)

<TallTed> +1

<fsasaki> +1

<tl> +1

<pfps> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of last two weeks' meetings

Review of open actions, available at 3

Review of open PRs, available at 4

ora: there are actions open but we can't address them now

lisp: in the n-triples document there is an issue that applications have no guarantee of what triples are returned

ora: I propose that we merge these PRs

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-quads/pull/108/changes

<gb> PR 108 Undefined errors (by lisp)

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-trig/pull/69/changes

<gb> PR 69 add text for non-conformant documents (by lisp)

Andy: I would like to take a look first

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/pull/159/changes

<gb> PR 159 add text for non-conformant documents (by lisp)

Andy: if this is as I expect, we can merge

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-xml/pull/124/changes

<gb> PR 124 add text for non-conformant documents (by lisp)

Andy: I can do the Turtle one

ora: what about 113?
… regarding n-triples

pchampin: decision has to be made regarding this behaviour
… not sure about the case of datasets
… no problem for RDF graphs and triples, but may not apply to RDF datasets

ora: equidna tests failed, not sure why

pchampin: maybe it is due to it being candidate rec

Andy: some file is missing

pchampin: I'll into this problem

lisp: the change that pchampin refers to is something I did a week ago
… the documents do not use the same language to describe what they produce
… it may be intentional or an error
… should be checked

pchampin: there is indeed an inconsistncy
… nquads has term construction and dataset construction
… another doc has something constructor
… it should be homogenised
… I am ok with homogenising but I was raising concerns about the case of RDF datasets

<Andy> +1 to "graph"

ora: if pchampin is ok with the proposal, thne we can merge 113

pchampin: the proposal was not yet approved, but then ok

Andy: n-triples is in working draft status, contrary to what was said before
… RDF Concepts is cnadidate rec, Semantics too

pchampin: n-triples is still pending TAG approval
… but that's not the reason equidna is struggling

ora: what about sparql-query 417?

olaf: I still wait a bit for people to take a look at it, especially pfps

olaf: there are changes on the parts about pattern matching and entailment regimes

pchampin: I created a PR this morning on RDF semantics
… a quick fix in the CSS related to dark mode
… some parts were not readable in dark mode so I fixed it

(that was PR 201 on rdf-semantics)

ora: what about syntax highlighting (PR 40 in rdf-primer)

<Andy> w3c/rdf-primer#40 (comment)

<gb> PR 40 Syntax highlight examples (by niklasl)

Dominik_T: it's good to merge

pchampin: agreed

Identifying issues to solve before CR 5

ora: let's look at the one that say "proposed closing"

Andy: what about responses from reviews
… ... issue 180 in rdf-star-wg

pchampin: it makes sense to keep it open for the moment
… it will be reused for further horizontal reviews, so its better keeping it open

ora: issue 146 in rdf-concepts (straight quotes vs smart quotes)

TallTed: I propose keeping it open, I have to check the documents

Andy: issue 194 of rdf-star-wg, regarding Macintosh file type code, has been addressed, we can close

ora: period vs full stop, issue 74 in rdf-n-triples

TallTed: it's a question of clarity but there are competing standards
… if it's consistent, then we can close it
… ok we can close

ora: regarding the accessibility review should we keep like the security review?

pchampin: yes

<Dominik_T> w3c/rdf-star-wg#196

<gb> Issue 196 Consider a small RDF vocabulary for reporting processor error-handling behavior (by domel) [propose closing]

ora: 196 can be closed

<Zakim> Andy, you wanted to talk about media types

ora: we may still one day revisit this

pchampin: we have issues that say "we should reflect the decision about error handling"
… those can be close too

ora: punctuation, number 127 in RDF concepts?

TallTed: i must check

ora: what about RDF Concepts section ordering (228 in rdf-concepts)

pchampin: the list in the issue is as of August, but I think it did not move since

<pchampin> I'm sympathetic to this issue, but I can't prioritize it personally

<Andy> regrets for next week

ora: what about rdf-primer 28, broken links?

ora: Renato Iannella provides a link to FOAF that works
… but the FOAF project webpages do not work

ora: related is rdf-primer 32 on vocab links

ora: pchampin, please fix the FOAF link and take into account issue 32 and 33 that are related

ora: what about the issues tagged with "deferred"?

pchampin: we leave them as "deferred"

ora: AOB?

pchampin: I will have a chat with Yves Lafond to solve some things
… including n-triples not being in candidate rec

Andy: no SPARQL meeting tomorrow