RDF*

<AndyS> OK

<pchampin> scribe: AndyS

Review pending actions

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction

Please "present+" if you are here and not on the list above.

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/16

<pfps> presetn+

pchampin: Action on NT*. Gregg can claim success.

<pfps> Close it.

Discuss Gregg's PR on N-Triples* and N-Quads*

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/87

gregg: Nothing surprising.
... recursive parsing on <<>> triple terms.
... NQ is informative : NT*+graph label.

pchampin: any other inputs?

<TallTed> Maybe we change these names sooner than later? N-Triples-star and N-Quads-star? (or, hey, what about N-star-Triples and N-star-Quads?)

olaf: happy

gatemezing: why NQ* not normative?

gregg: section does not make any normative statements

pchampin: seems substantive enough to implement an NQ*

gregg: will update with a normative sentence.

<pchampin> PROPOSED: merge PR 87 in the CG report, after making the N-Quads* section normative (with the appropriate normative statement)

<TallTed> +1 modulo 2 fixes I just submitted...

<pchampin> +1

<gkellogg> +1

+1

<olaf> +1

<james_> +1

<gatemezing> +1

<thomas> 0

<pfps> +1

<rivettp> +1

RESOLUTION: merge PR 87 in the CG report, after making the N-Quads* section normative (with the appropriate normative statement)

Discuss the naming issue

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/20

pchampin: proposal is "RDF-star" for our work, "RDF* " is Olaf+Bryan's work.

<pfps> Isn't * a Latin character (and even an ASCII character)? It's just a character that some search engines appear to attach special meaning to.

<TallTed> "RDFstar" may be better than "RDF-star", especially but not only for web searching

pfps: RDFStar

<pfps> RDFStar is RDFS tar

<olaf> RDFstar then?

<TallTed> (ah, yes, the eternal "PenIsland.com" quandary)

<pfps> RDFstar is somewhat better

<TallTed> all lowercase is super ... rdfstar

gregg: other related terms. N-Triples etc.

<TallTed> RDFTNG, TurtleTNG, N-TriplesTNG, N-QuadsTNG, RDFTNG/XML, TriGTNG

gregg: use with SPARQL (SPARQL-star)

<TallTed> this kool aid is bad.

gregg: existing practice N-Triples.

ted: forking is not doing any good.

TallTed: evolution of RDF
... fork in the road.

AndyS: name is the work of this group - no further implication

<gkellogg> RDF 1.1*

pchampin: input for future working group.

<TallTed> RDFbis ... RDFfuture ... RDFpossibilities

<gkellogg> RDF 1.1 + Embedding

<TallTed> RDFembed

gregg: subgroup for the concerns

<thomas_> staRDF

<gkellogg> RDF 1.1a

<thomas_> the initial criticism was searchability and that is probably justified. evereything else, like forkig etc, seems premature optimization to me

<TallTed> substituting "-star" (or "star") for all suffixes of "*" sort-of works, at least insofar as it fixes search engine issues and removes the regex(etc) wildcard, and within the cabal who know of this work

<TallTed> if it's *not* a fork, then "*"/"star" suffix is more painful. "RDF-DEV"

<pchampin> STRAWPOLL: replace "*" with "-star"

<TallTed> RDF-DEV-embedding

<TallTed> it's super long, but clear as a bell

<pchampin> +1

<TallTed> +1

+1 to strawapoll

<gkellogg> +

<gatemezing> +1

<olaf> +1 (to the strawpoll)

<james_> +1 for "-star" universally

<thomas_> 0

<gkellogg> Corralary might be JSON-LD CG-embedding

<rivettp> +1

<thomas_> staRDF might actually be not such a bad idea...

RESOLUTION: replace "*" with "-star"

pchampin is a star.

<pchampin> ACTION: pchampin to update the current draft, replacing "*" with "-star"

<TallTed> worth noting -- https://www.google.com/search?q=rdf-star 1.7M results vs https://www.google.com/search?q=rdfstar 0.1M results

publishing of a "first public working draft"

<james_> "rdf-star" yields 44.9k

pchampin: As in a WG, put out work-in-progress documents.
... at a URL with date (see normal WG process).
... send link to RDF-DEV ML.

<james_> ... the first one being the rdf* community group github site.

(and twitter and the rest)

<pchampin> scribe: pchampin

AndyS: this does not imply that we all agree about what's in the document
... let the world know what's going on, attract interested people
... avoid getting stuck in our private "loops"

<AndyS> thomas_: disagreement on semantics

<gatemezing> +1 to Andy's points to reach out and attracj more people out there

<AndyS> pchampin: text on main branch is a long way off discussions.

<AndyS> ... pull request in progress

<AndyS> thomas_: removing it gives the wrong impression

<AndyS> pchampin: new text is closer to current discussions

<TallTed> +1 major change PRs should be merged before FPWD is announced

<AndyS> +1 to merge PR - "editors working draft" is work-in-progress

<AndyS> james_: need a stable doc

<AndyS> pchampin: In a WG, a "Last Call" doc is that.

<scribe> scribe: pchampin

<AndyS> scribe: AndyS

<scribe> scribe: AndyS

<gkellogg> From W3C process, I think it would be a “CG Draft” publication.

gregg: common practice is a "publications" area for a CG (dated links, immutable)
... Community Groups have "CG draft", and "CG report". Drafts form a one-way linked list.

<gatemezing> FCGD - First Community Group Draft with time stamp version - according to gregg

gregg: Landing page refers to most recent draft and also a live doc.

<olaf> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/

rivettp: have a clear home page
... tag in GH

<gkellogg> yes, the current page is a good starting point.

rivettp: READ as to status of docs

tallted: pipeline of technologies

<gatemezing> Yes, the current page https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/ by renaming RDF-* by RDF-star :)

<pchampin> PROPOSED: release a first CG draft after the merge of PR87

<TallTed> "RDF 1.1 star 0.5b"

<gkellogg> +1

<pchampin> +1

<TallTed> +1

<gatemezing> +1

+1 to the proposal

<olaf> +1

<james_> +1

<thomas_> -1

<gkellogg> Perhaps add some editors notes on missing sections.

<gatemezing> ok

<TallTed> maybe publish current Editors Draft *with* addition of links in "Status of Document", to previews with (competing?) semantics PRs

<gatemezing> Thanks all!