– DRAFT –
RDF-star

Announcements and newcomers

Jay: using RDF and related tech to create electronic labels (food drugs, cosmetics, household chemicals)
… can see along the supply chain as it has labels-in-labels.
… looking the RDF-star work to see if it will relate to what we plan to deploy soon

james: link?

james: labels-in-labels : is it by inclusion or by reference.

Jay: large graphs being updated (Shex and SHACL on ingestion). Generates references (may be in (solid) pods).

pchampin: Announcement -- 3rd public draft published
… all contributors now properly registered in the CG.

pchampin: none :-)

Summer schedule

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

pchampin: Can make next call in 2 weeks time. Then time away, back in August.
… common practice: gap and reconvene end Aug/early Sept

pchampin: work areas -- charter and vocab section

Who is here 16/July?

<james> +1

<thomas> +1

<ora> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<rivettp> +1

<TallTed> +1

<AndyS> +1

<pchampin> +1

<jay> +1

<pchampin> PROPOSAL: cancel all calls after July 16, and reconvene on Sep 3rd

<AndyS> +1

<james> 0

<pchampin> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<rivettp> +1

<thomas> 0

<TallTed> +

<TallTed> +0

Resolution: cancel all calls after July 16, and reconvene on Sep 3rd

CG report

pchampin: Vocabulary

AndyS: suggesting we describe "embedded triples" as "quoted triples"
… we have used that term on occasions; also used in N3 (quoted formula)
… Too late to change "embeded" to "quoted"

thomas: +ve: useful term but -ve not what it looks like

<TallTed> Grammar remains the same, but comprehension would rise dramatically.

AndyS: wholesale change is a change to grammar e.g. embTriple

james: either replace uses or be careful to mention in one place "behaves as ..."

pchampin: non-normative language
… possibility: "quoted" => not asserted.

TallTed: I find "quoted" useful - communicates unasserted better than "embedded" -- and I would do so throughout.

ora: without strong opinion on what specific words we use, now is the time to change terminology - we are not REC track yet.

<thomas> the embedded triple is unasserted AND quoted

<rivettp> we want to capture "not necessarily asserted" which is a bit of a mouthful

james: this qualification makes it complicated - quoted works, "assertion" has extra language to say it is the local usage intended.

<thomas> quoted to me refers to referential opacity, so is not about assertion

TallTed: grammar term embTriple will cause embedded in people's mind.
… challenge is communicate and express the effect of the <<>>
… need care

ora: original RDF - similar issues - reification examples helped.

<TallTed> +1000 examples ... and it's helpful to build later examples upon/from earlier examples

AndyS: suggest to turn this into some action, to see what would be the impact
… can work on it during the summer

pchampin: Notions -- :s :p :o and <<:s :p :o>> -- unchanged.

james - "quoted" works better than "embedded".

<TallTed> "embedded" is not clearly distinguished from "asserted" nor "unasserted"

james: "quoted" works better than "embedded".

gkellogg: quoted - and may elsewhere be asserted.
… "embedded" keep but "quoted" is more accurate to the way people think about it.

thomas: now prefer "quoted"

ora: like "quoted" and it's like lisp

gkellogg: yes - there is a quoted triple there.

thomas: "embedded" when written, "quoted" in abstract syntax.

Action: AndyS: continue issue already opened

WG draft charter

https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues/1

pchampin: several SPARQL RECs to update.
… needs updating to RDF 1.1
… makes the scope of RDF-star WG much larger

gkellogg: split makes a coordination problem. Better is one WG with subgroups.
… need to coordinate with JSON-LD WG (maintainence)

TallTed: agree.

ora: RDF / RDFS turned out to be not the way to work. There was a big overlap.

jay: wikidata is significant to us (company).

pchampin: yes, stability is important

<TallTed> makes some sense ... alignment to an implementation or deployment (e.g., Wikidata, which has broken from the standard in some significant ways), however, as opposed to alignment to a *standard*, less sense

ora: I agree that stability is significant and important.

AndyS: I assumed it would be one group, organizing itself as it wants
… Once upon the time, there was an RDF coordination group
… Of course, we must hope enough people turn up.
… There is a danger a scope creep.
… The language of the charter must keep the scope focused.