RDF-star

<fabio_vitali> Hello

Announcements and newcomers

<fabio_vitali> MUCH better

<fabio_vitali> Thank you

pchampin: asking for anouncements
… quick one: we'll have our next call in 2 weeks, so take care about the the time changing in Europe
… It will be at the usual local time for everyone

Open actions

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

pchampin: Asking for any other comments. None. So let's move on

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/211 : improve figure

pchampin: Starting with easy ones see issue #211
… made some few changes, added links to blocks.

pchampin: no objection to close it. So it's closed.

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/207 : marking issues as proposed-later

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/169 : occurence vocabulary

pchampin: marked one on the occurence vocab

pchampin: RDF-Triples are unique. There is a section in the report targeting occurences, as well as the vocab section

<AndyS> +1 esp as a likely discussion in the WG so there is only so much that can be done by this team.

gatemezing: good question about the semantics of "proposed-later"

<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to ask what "proposed-later" label means

TallTed: What is the proposed-later label means?

pchampin: This is a temporary label to be submitted to the group as "later"

olaf: Agreed on not adding this discussion on the report

gatemezing: no objection as well

<pchampin> PROPOSED: mark issue 169 as 'later' (defer to future WG)

<pchampin> +1

<gatemezing> +1

<TallTed> +0

<AndyS> +1

<fabio_vitali> +1

<olaf> +1

<Doerthe> +1

<ora> +1

<rivettp> +1

Resolution: mark issue 169 as 'later' (defer to future WG)

pchampin: I'll keep my action open and make the change right now.

pchampin: We have open actions in concrete grammars, moving entailment regimes will be handle in the next agendum

Pending Pull-Requests

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

pchampin: list of 3 PRs at https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pulls

<fabio_vitali> you guys are too fast for me

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/217 : Metadata

gatemezing: PR is good for me. Up to you to decide.

<olaf> Fabio, too fast in what sense?

pchampin: saw TallTed idea to avoid having the generated files in the repo.

<fabio_vitali> @olaf: it takes three-four seconds for me to click on the link, read the topic and try to form an opinion, and you are already discussing the next one

<fabio_vitali> not complaining, just noting

pchampin: Please fabio_vitali do not hesitate to stop the chairs when they go faster

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/215 : TEPs and RDF-star vocab

pchampin: Turn to TEPs (Transparency Enabling Properties)

<fabio_vitali> Stupid questions: why the plural? Why are there properties instead of a single one?

pchampin: we have now a formal semantics, included IRIs for TPEs,

<fabio_vitali> Stupid question: why the plural? Why are there properties instead of a single one?

<fabio_vitali> thank you

pchampin: proposed to finish the discussion on-line and merge if there is a consensus

pchampin: olaf is suggesting to change the orders of some sections https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/215#issuecomment-954706145

<pchampin> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/215.html#ref-opacity

olaf: It's not a strong opinion

olaf proposal: reorder subsubsections as follow: referential opacity, alternatives to ref opacity, TEPs

pchampin: I hear olaf as if he is far from his phone?!

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/218 : full EBNF of syntaxes

pchampin: the idea is to have this PR in the html document in the appendices
… once the technical issue is solved, this would be nice to have in the report
… this PR is also good to be merged

pchampin: Chartering of the WG will take time anyway

WG chartering

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

pchampin: The repo for the charter is on github
… the new W3C WG will chartered a family of RDF and SPARQL documents
… there is still open questions regarding additional features w.r.t. W3C process to avoid all rounds of the normal process,
… making it lighter even if it can raised issues on stability and implementations

<rivettp> has anyone given any thought to including SHACL in the scope of the "family"?

pchampin: one of the question not yet adressed is that probably I will be the W3C point contact
… so I could not continue as chair if that happens
… We need to identify potential chair(s) to be involved in the charter

pchampin: including SHACL? the maturity of the REC, the timing problem and even logistic issues

AndyS: Agreed not including SHACL

<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to suggest listing SHACL-star (and possibly other things not yet discussed) as an optional stretch goal

AndyS: but it manages to handle it, that's great

TallTed: Listing it at least in the draft, even if it is not tackle could be fair

pchampin: Not putting it as requirement, but indeed include it

AndyS: suggested to propose to write something around that in the document. Thanks AndyS !

pchampin: This remind me the JSON-LD CG vs RDF WG

TallTed: The difference here is that SHACL exists compare to the situation some years ago with JSON-LD (not existing at the time)

ora: anybody working on R2RML-star?

<ora> R2RML

<olaf> RML-star

<olaf> "RML-star: A Declarative Mapping Language for RDF-star Generation" by Thomas Delva, Julián Arenas-Guerrero, Ana Iglesias-Molina, Oscar Corcho, David Chaves-Fraga, Anastasia Dimou

<olaf> http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2980/paper374.pdf

<ora> :-)

pchampin: let's think about some names for the next calls

pchampin: conformance section should have to wait
… I suggest to discuss it in the next call

<fabio_vitali> thank you

pchampin: thanks everyone
… find some names for future chairs

<TallTed> 11/11 == US Veterans Day, UK Remembrance Day. Not typically a day off.

<Doerthe> bye

<gatemezing> bye

<AndyS> bye

<ora> bye