W3C

RDF-star

19 March 2021

Attendees

Present
AndyS, gatemezing, gkellogg, olaf, ora, pchampin, rivettp, TallTed, thomas
Regrets
-
Chair
pchampin
Scribe
AndyS, pchampin

Meeting minutes

Announcements and newcomers

pchampin: pchampin and olaf holding a Lotico event on RDF-star (March 25, 16:00 UTC))

<TallTed> email announcement of the Lotico event - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021Mar/0039.html

Open actions

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

pchampin: Action to ask community about adding a URI to the RDF namespace

olaf: actions on me
… (1) respond to james
… (2) PR for <<>> for primaryExpressions
… in-progress

AndyS: Gregg+Andy -- Getting nice URIs for tests in manifests

Implementation reports

<pchampin> PR: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/131

<gkellogg> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/rdf-star/a8080d301f37c28636b3e99336cf9c242252d53f/reports/index.html

gkellogg: Infrastructure for handling EARL report and creating HTML for all impl reports.
… WG process is 2 impls per feature.
… Link off the RDF-star site from spec to external reports.
… Andy asked that infra is one PR and then PR's per impl report to show how to do it and track the reports we receive
… part of our CI
… catch errors in incoming reports early.
… stretch goal: GH Actions

<AndyS> +1 to gkellogg's work to automate

<gatemezing> +1 to the report. Great work.

gkellogg: may be ask previous implementations who have mentioned they support RDF*

pchampin: Could be a good point to do a 2nd draft report.

gkellogg: Manifests sorting out first, then PRs from #131 (reports)

<pchampin> PROPOSED: once the manifests are sorted out, merge the Impl Report infrastructure

pchampin: Can we get the manifests committed?

<AndyS> +1

<pchampin> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<gatemezing> +1

<ora> +1

<william> +1

<olaf> +1

<TallTed> +1

<rivettp> +1

Resolution: once the manifests are sorted out, merge the Impl Report infrastructure

What do we need to release our 2nd public draft?

pchampin: Reaching a (meta)stable point
… some open issues
… some can be closed

AndyS: good idea to publish, and to pick some issues
… gives us a clock tick, allow us to focus

olaf: Good idea. Suggestion to include:
… <<>> in expressions
… extend the overview with more examples - becoming tutorial/primer style.

<ora> +1 for Olaf's primer/tutorial section idea

pchampin: agree

<thomas> +1 to Olaf's proposal

olaf: Reads better for new readers.

<gatemezing> +1 to have such a primer section

pchampin: SPARQL operators
… low hanging fruit. Examples in issue and tests.

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/121

<olaf> +1

Action: pchampin: Will write some text WRT RDF-star merge

<gkellogg> +1

Also https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/129

pchampin: proposed alt semantics - not getting much pull so withdraw PR.
… semantic test suite needs updating to align with semantics defn.

Action: pchampin to align the Semantics test suite with the current content of the Semantics section

pchampin: Overview; functions&operators; merge; impl reports
… for 2nd draft.

<pchampin> PROPOSED: release 2nd public draft once {Overview; functions&operators; merge; impl reports} are included

<gkellogg> +1

<pchampin> +1

<thomas> 0

<olaf> +1

<AndyS> +1 -- and happy if less rather than push too far out

<gatemezing> +1 if possible at least 3 months after the 1st report

<ora> +1

"publish early, publish often"

<rivettp> +1

<TallTed> +1

<william> +1

Resolution: release 2nd public draft once {Overview; functions&operators; merge; impl reports} are included

<gatemezing> Who is the author AndyS ?

me

Open-ended discussions

gkellogg: Industry input. Is this SA a possible barrier? Should we explain how RDF* -> RDF-star ?

pchampin: Pavel was active we settled on this.

<pchampin> AndyS: explaining how to use current RDF-star (e.g. annotation) to "emulate" PG-mode

<olaf> ontotext

<gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star#preliminary-implementations

New UC on uncertainty is definitely PG

thomas: Clarification Q: stop talking about PG but was decision to drop it?
… is it a layer over SA?

pchampin: IIRC modes became confusing
… need to check exactly what we decided

thomas: Does PG differ in a way that is not a layer over PG.

gkellogg: some systems may need to be PG - by either annotation or auto "infer" assert triple. Getting ahead of ourselves maybe.
… some impls might have an index consideration.
… impl reports may help highlight this

olaf: agree - systems have been built RDF* and states Property Graph-like.
… annotation syntax. For them, change of syntax.

<pchampin> annotation syntax: {| ... |}

thomas: Q: no statements about not-asserted triple?

pchampin: change is not claim full support?
… media type may be involved

<william> well I believe that's what Eye does

<pchampin> AndyS: another way of providing PG features would be to pre-process << >> to also assert them

<pchampin> ... and maintain consistency for deletion

<pchampin> ... some kind of inferencing

<thomas> RDF-star and RDF-STAR

pchampin: PG-mode only tests will fail.

thomas: How many people need unasserted triples?

<TallTed> unasserted are vital. `Mary says "the_moon is green_cheese".`

william: SA related to reification?

pchampin: Thanks everyone - meeting closed

<william> thanks! bye

<olaf> Thanks!

<gatemezing> bye!

<thomas> bye!

Summary of action items

  1. pchampin: Will write some text WRT RDF-star merge
  2. pchampin to align the Semantics test suite with the current content of the Semantics section

Summary of resolutions

  1. once the manifests are sorted out, merge the Impl Report infrastructure
  2. release 2nd public draft once {Overview; functions&operators; merge; impl reports} are included
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).