Announcements and newcomers
pchampin: rust implementation in progress
gkellogg: Regenerate EARL tests?
pchampin: wait until next publication
ora: Any C++ implementation?
… and state of Redland?
<gatemezing> I'm not aware of any implementation in C++ nor Redland
AndyS: when we publish next time, maybe we should have a vote saying the test suite is complete
pchampin: charter action open.
… SPARQL function/operators action merged
Discussion on referential opacity <https://
github.com/> w3c/ rdf-star/ pull/ 173
<thomas> i commented today
<thomas> sorry, i was late
thomas: suggestion to add section 2.2 that covers transparent vs opaque.
pchampin: section is focused on the abstract syntax.
… so discussion is with "semantics".
thomas: not visible enough
pchampin: This PR is about "transparent vs opaque" in dedicated sections.
… can we merge this PR?
gkellogg: this is an abstract issue and may, in a WG, be rolled into RDF semantics and entailments.
… so maybe guidance to a future WG on updating RDF.
<pchampin> PROPOSAL: merge PR173
pchampin: propose to merge #173.
Resolution: merge PR173
Section on RDF-star vocabulary <https://
github.com/> w3c/ rdf-star/ pull/ 176
pchampin: some placeholders for discussion.
thomas: misses transparency vocabulary - there is an issue.
thomas: issue #170
Action: pchampin to add issue 170 in the section of PR176
thomas: add syntax for transparency?
pchampin: does not define vocabulary.
<pchampin> PROPOSAL: merge PR176 after issue 170 has been added to it
Resolution: merge PR176 after issue 170 has been added to it
Discussion of TR 'Content Negotiation by Profile' <https://
github.com/> w3c/ rdf-star/ pull/ 177
TallTed: neither "x." nor "x-" is appropriate
AndyS: IANA registration is slow, but updating an existing registration can be quicker
TallTed: there is a combination of facts here, including the fact that text/turtle *currently* does not point to the correct document
pchampin: the correct text is to leave it as "x."
… "x-" is not a subtree
pchampin: the point of the section is to note there is not consensus in this group.
<gatemezing> +1 of pchampin solution of not explicitly mentioning the x. or x-
pchampin: suggest remove mention of "x?"
<pchampin> STRAWPOLL: do not mention either 'x.' or 'x-'
gkellogg: what is necessary for other media type - eg: n-triples: -> TR/n-triples
… then no IANA involvement needed
<TallTed> Linking from the CGReport to the relevant Issues and/or PRs could keep some of the discussion text out of the report, and make it easier for follow-on work to see how we reached the conclusion(s) in the CGReport
AndyS: Turtle was registered before it was a REC
… it is a special case
<TallTed> We might suggest to the IANA-listed W3 affiliated maintainers of these media types that their registrations be changed to point to w3id.org URIs which *should* be easier to update going forward, with more maintainers, etc.
pchampin: bring the "one person" contact issue to W3C team.
Action: pchampin to raise the IANA issue (specific individual responsible for mediatype) in W3C stategy team
<TallTed> (or that the IANA-listed maintainers be changed to point to role accounts/addresses)
<pchampin> PROPOSED: merge PR 177 once the 'x.'/'x-' mentions have been removed
Resolution: merge PR 177 once the 'x.'/'x-' mentions have been removed
TallTed: suggestion - link to discussions
… add links to places location for discussions
AndyS: discussions tend to be in context
gkellogg: discussions exist on github.
pchampin: The section has a link to issue 43.
… and telecon discussions noted on issues
<ora> +1 on Andy's comment
Publishing a new report
pchampin: ted and thomas wish to make proposals.
TallTed: not a blocker for me.
pchampin: only choices in W3C process are "draft" and "final"
… will add to intro/abstract explaining "final" does not mean no further publication
pchampin: proposal - we make a decision next week on publication of a "non draft" report.
thomas: my proposal by Wednesday