RDF-star

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!