16 July 2021


AndyS, gkellogg, james, ora, pchampin, rivettp
james, pchampin

Meeting minutes

Announcements and newcomers

pchampin: announcements?

Open actions

pchampin: next item is open actions...

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

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/193

pchampin: the "quoted triple terminology shift" is addressed in a pull request. let us discuss it.

Renaming 'embedded' to 'quoted'

pchampin: discussion of renaming... greg pull request addresses the spec and the grammars

greg: initiated pull request is pretty much andy's work. my text is a mechanical translation.
… andy can talk abut substance.

james: I agree with the change,
… but I would like to go on the record: "quoting" is not the right operation here.
… Cf. the notion of quoting in LISP is blocking the process of interpreting.
… Here, it does not prohibit processing, but simply changes it (ref. opacity vs. transparency).

ora: the difference is only there because you define the process to be 'interpretation'.
… For me the process is "asserting", and so this makes sense.

<pchampin> +1 to what ora says

james: maybe you should include this explanation in the text

ora: I will look at the text and change it to that effect

pchampin: other comments?
… : i reached out to olaf, as i felt he should be able to comment on it.
… : he said he was ok with the renaming
… : reviews the pull request and had concerns with lexical things.
… : also feel the sectionon annotation syntax is redundant, confusing where it is.

<pchampin> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/192.html#annotation-syntax

pchampin: : and does not add much to the text from the overview.
… : reactions?

AndyS: i will look. have yet to have time

pchampin: ok. we can move forward?

<jay-gray> good with me

STRAWPOLL: for merging once editors are satisfied...

<james> +1

<pchampin> +1

<rivettp> +1

<TallTed> +1 for merge

<ora> +1

<AndyS> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<jay-gray> +1

<TallTed> Section title where this falls is "2. Concepts and Abstract Syntax". Annotation Syntax is definitely a Concept of RDF-star.

pchampin: TallTed, i note your point.
… serves as a valid counter-argument to removing the section

AndyS: it needs some kind of mention, because people tend to engage the syntax in preference to the abstract data model

pchampin: agree that the explicit mention is justified. also find other redundancy between overview and other sections. just have to ensure that it does not confuse.

AndyS: found it difficult to change the overview. mentioning twice is better than neglecting them. as long as nothing is wrong it suffices.
… : important is to get to the point where ne need to fiddle, but inprinciple "are done"

TallTed: usual pattern to review a document is as stand-alone, but for this document it needs to be redundant because no one reads everything.
… : people are tolerant because they do not read eveyrthing

pchampin: agree. only concern is that for the few who read everything, might be confused by reapperance

pchampin: next, charter

WG draft charter

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

pchampin: insufficient time to address the issue since last week. from discussion, most members are more favorable to a single large working group

pchampin: any objections or continue with that assumption?

pchampin: no objection. my first concern was that it would appear overambitious to those who must validate the charter.
… proposals to address this?

ora: need to define scope so that there are very few additions and are addressing the ramifications so that the scope is clear

<AndyS> +1 to ora's comments

pchampin: i tried to achieve that in the draft. aware that there is a long wish list for "future" rdf.

<jay-gray> consistent with Andy's point about syntax, as an "application developer" we see the world thru the query language. for that reason we support a broader focus. harmony with SPARQL is important to us

ora: must be clear that this isnot to be the "fix it all" group

<TallTed> "RDF 1.2, not RDF 2.0"

pchampin: not sure whether we discussed it last week: make it possible for recommendations to be open to new features.
… : it can authorize new features without the entire draft process.
… : the current draft opens that possibility. this would be way to deflect desire to add new things directly to the immediate scope
… : that also has an impact on the specification's stability.

AndyS: related to w3c process changes. on new features. makes one nervous. are the features large or small.
… : if it is a small fix, that is not a concern, but how big is a "small" addition?
… : another w3c variant is that working groups need not close. this makes it possible for a group to go dormant but return to effect errata in order to keep the documentup to date.

<TallTed> "RDF 1.2, not RDF 2.0; with (re)alignment of all existing RDF serializations to this RDF 1.2; and SPARQL 1.2 (which bumps the SPARQL 1.2 now under discussion to make SPARQL 1.3 or higher)"

pchampin: "maintenance" group status. json-ld is a precedent

AndyS: is there a chair who chair announce "time for maintenance"?

pchampin: it is comfortable to know that the possibility exists, but an effort is involved to engage the process.

pchampin: if we say we are an "rdf-star" group, just attending to that one thing, but go into maintenance mode, it might be tricky to argue for that state
… : may be difficult to distinguish "too big", but there are criteria, like backward compatibility

TallTed: difficult to argue for "new feature", because there is no way to turn it an and off. for rdf-star the translation to rdf is not clearly defined

pchampin: thinking about "new features" as pertaining to rdf-star itself

<AndyS> https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#revised-rec-features

pchampin: rdf-star itself is too large to be a "new feature"
… : this additional process would pertain to the rdf-star specification itself.

<pchampin> https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#allow-new-features

AndyS: does this pertain to just "at risk" features? this is not clear

pchampin: notes the relevant section of the process

AndyS: (discussion about process which requires the document to follow the details...)

pchampin: the goal is to mimic the "evergreen" standard, but that may make more sense for html than rdf

AndyS: the process is just to rigid to handle editorial corrections

pchampin: the maintenance option would be the proper solution for such a thing.

AndyS: it is not changing content or examples. it is errata

TallTed: namespace example is just errata

AndyS: we need more input from outside

Action: pchampin to find out what are the limitations of "new feature" in the new W3C process


pchampin: next meeting september third

<AndyS> Have a good summer everyone!

<jay-gray> bfn

<ora> bye

Summary of action items

  1. pchampin to find out what are the limitations of "new feature" in the new W3C process
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 142 (Tue Jun 1 16:59:13 2021 UTC).