RDF-star

<thomas> thomas+

<TallTed> present

I'll scribe

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

Open actions

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

pchampin: charter action open.
… SPARQL function/operators action merged

Outstanding pull-requests

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> q.

<pchampin> PROPOSAL: merge PR173

<gkellogg> +1

<pchampin> +1

pchampin: propose to merge #173.

<AndyS> +1

<ora> +1

<thomas> +1

<gatemezing> +1

<TallTed> +1

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> 170

thomas: issue #170

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

<gkellogg> +1

<AndyS> +1

<pchampin> +1

<TallTed> +1

<thomas> +1

<gatemezing> +1

<ora> +1

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-'

<AndyS> +1

<pchampin> +1

<thomas> 0

<gkellogg> +1

<TallTed> +1

<gatemezing> +1

<ora> +1

<gkellogg> https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/n-triples

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

<pchampin> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<gatemezing> +1

<ora> +1

<thomas> 0

<TallTed> +0.75

<AndyS> +1

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

<ora> Bye!