03 September 2021


AndyS, Doerthe, Fabio_Vitali, gatemezing, gkellogg, olaf, ora, pchampin, rivettp, TallTed, thomas
gatemezing, pchampin

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://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/editors_draft.html#occurrences

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://mosaicrown.github.io/scg2021/

<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://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/196

pchampin: Issue #196 is still pending

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/195

pchampin: the process for a "living standard" is possible
… check what could be a new feature in the W3C process

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/88

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://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/88

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


<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://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc

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


<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


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

Summary of action items

  1. pchampin to notify semantic.web@w3.org about https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/88
  2. olaf to write a part on "per-property semantics" in the report -- pchampin to help
  3. pchampin to draft an introduction paragraph to show the interconnection between the section
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 142 (Tue Jun 1 16:59:13 2021 UTC).