Meeting minutes
<ora> (Too long of a break to again remember all the chat commands...)
Announcements and newcomers
Introduction of the new comer Fabio Vitali
… Prof in Italy and working a lot on semantic technologies
… He was also involved in many W3C, like anything around markup
pchampin: thanks for the introduction
ora: Should write a comparison for next week. They write a paper for SCG workshop
… and they realize there are somethings that are not taken into account by this rdf-star work
… thinking to write a use case on that aspect, and apologize before if this is late
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: Maybe it is related to some discussions we had before @ora joined the group
<thomas> ora: do you have a link to the paper?
<pchampin> https://
<ora> Paper is not public yet, I will provide a link soon.
<thomas> ora, thanks! looking forward to it
pchampin: explain the venue of SCG workshop at SemantiCs2021
Open actions
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: Issue #196 is still pending
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: the process for a "living standard" is possible
… check what could be a new feature in the W3C process
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: and sent an email to a boss at W3C awaiting for the response
ora: I was wondering the impact on product delivery processes
AndyS: There's must be a public discussion on new features
AndyS: my gut feeling is that RDF-star would be to big to be considered a "new feature"
… It would set a high expectation
thomas: could it be better to send to the public semantic Web W3C list?
Action: pchampin to notify semantic.web@w3.org about https://
gkellogg: A balance should be reach between the limitations and the features
… the charter should limit the types of the group can do or not
<pchampin> +1 for a feature-annoucement mechanism of some kind
gkellogg: RDF-star should consider annoucemenent features like MDN with HTML
ora: a risk to choose what to implement in a living document could be also a risk
olaf: The concern is to better seperate and consider it
rivettp: How the ecosystem would evolve with somehow different implementations of the specs
rivettp: OWL and other standards have not caught up with RDF 1.1
… How would that go with RDF being a living standard?
<rivettp> my concern generally was the challenge of managing the ecosystem as a whole if one standard is "living"
AndyS: migrations are hard. People will wait until something is a standard to implement it
+1 with AndyS's point
<rivettp> maybe you try for synchronized configurations or releases of multiple projects - which is what Eclipse tries to do
PR #198: Suggest metadata in manifest turtle file
pchampin: This discussion should be push forward in the public mailing list
gatemezing: this PR aims to add more metadata in the manifest files.
… AndyS, gatemezing, TallTed commented on it.
… There's general agreement that it should be done, more discussion on what to add exactly.
[discussion on the representation of licenses in RDF]
Issue #200: RDF-star and reasoning
https://
<olaf> +1
AndyS: We have to choose which types of discussions and maybe add labels
<TallTed> ugh. Github discussion "threads" are one-level deep, and don't do well with shifting active conversation in either direction (issue->disc or disc->issue)
thomas: how to settle some other discussions in our document
… can someone put where to write it up so that it's part of the community report
… so that that everyone can easily find it
olaf: I can do it, but I can't do it by next week
Action: olaf to write a part on "per-property semantics" in the report -- pchampin to help
TallTed: I'm against using Github discussion since it's not mature for this purpose
… Use mailing list for other type of discussion
pchampin: Not also fan with discussions on Github. There are different special "kind" of issues ...
<TallTed> Probably for next time, it can be good to review issues (with whatever label) based on oldest last activity -- e.g., https://
pchampin: The mailing list has an archive but still difficult to follow
<pchampin> STRAWPOLL: use github 'discussions' to replace de 'discussion' label on actions
AndyS: When do we know we've finished
<Fabio_Vitali> trivial question by newcomer: how do I let Zakim know I am present?
<thomas> +1 to ted
<rivettp> Are we not talking about GH Discussions as opposed to GH Issues - they are distinct things?
<Fabio_Vitali> Present
<pchampin> STRAWPOLL: use github 'discussions' to replace de 'discussion' label on actions
<pchampin> +0.5
<AndyS> +0.5
<gkellogg> +0
<Fabio_Vitali> @gatemezing: thanks
<TallTed> -0.9
<ora> +0
<rivettp> -1
<thomas> -0
<olaf> 0 (no experience with the github discussion feature)
<Doerthe> +0
+0.56
<Fabio_Vitali> there was a standard sentence to agree with majority
<Fabio_Vitali> +0
thomas: how do we go on this problem? Do we wait for the creator to join?
pchampin: Once we have the vocabulary added, then we could move forward with that point
roadmap
pchampin: few things regarding the vocab section, do think that all can be done before we send out a "final community report"
thomas: I proposed to reordoring the sections in the document before the summer..
AndyS: I'm concerned about the PR on restructuring before having a consensus on it is desirable
Action: pchampin to draft an introduction paragraph to show the interconnection between the section
<rivettp> I need to drop
pchampin: Thanks everyone and see you!
<gkellogg> Regrets for the next meeting.
<pchampin> gatemezing, no I'll take care of the rest
<pchampin> thanks