Meeting minutes
Announcements and newcomers
pchampin: announcements?
Open actions
pchampin: next item is open actions...
<pchampin> https://
<pchampin> https://
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://
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://
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://
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://
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
AOB
pchampin: next meeting september third
<AndyS> Have a good summer everyone!
<jay-gray> bfn
<ora> bye