Announcements and newcomers
Action: AndyS to make a PR to address issue #3
Debunking RDF-star myths in the intro
<<>> are unique terms in a graph -- so not a straight replacement for LPG (or all refication usages) - <<>> are a building block.
PFPS wants earlier mention of opaquacity..
phcampin: don't want intro to be too long.
… but should have longer than we currently have.
<TallTed> Might it be worth encouraging authors of those now- (possibly always-) erroneous papers to add some sort of note to that effect to (or at least nearby) those papers?
<gkellogg> +1 to adding such material to the intro.
<TallTed> +1 for adding to the RDF-star intro, for sure
pchampin: can suggest to the authors.
… some triplestore vendor examples are also misleading.
<TallTed> Yes, I'm not suggesting a wall-of-shame, but rather reaching out to the authors directly.
Action: ora to suggest to Olaf and Bryan to amend their paper on arXiv
Action: pchampin to make a PR to address issues #69 and #219
<fabio> "Common misunderstandings about RDF*"
<fabio> It looks more material for a FAQ than a section in the document
<TallTed> Common misperceptions about...
<TallTed> *heh* as IRC hiccups and reveals fabio's "Common misunderstandings" :-)
pchampin: material is already in the report - we are trying to help readers from jumping to a wrong conclusion basd on old material
<fabio> Excusatio non petita accusation manifesta
fabio: may be risky to put too early
<fabio> I have it in Latin, sorry
gkellogg: support adding clarification text.
gkellogg: balance to be struck regarding negatives and positives.
<TallTed> "Common troublesome misconceptions..." or "Common misperceptions that can lead to failure of interop" or ...
<TallTed> At least flagging that such exist should be in the intro. Full details may be better placed elsewhere and linked from intro.
pchampin: will propose text
Publishing a final report
pchampin: these are the only open actions needing work - rest are discussion-ish or "later"
pchampin: on the path to chartering the WG.
… publish at a dated URL
+1 to final report
<pchampin> PROPOSED: after the remaining PRs are merged, defer any new issue to the future WG, and publish a final report
Resolution: after the remaining PRs are merged, defer any new issue to the future WG, and publish a final report
pchampin: can still update editors draft is necessary.
… ideally not updating the final report
<TallTed> CG Final Report is similar to a NOTE. Can be updated/replaced whenever a group that has control over it wants.
<fabio> So this is the final meeting of this group?
pchampin: we need to accept the PRs and vote on the final report.
… also charter discussion
pchampin: one or two WGs? touchs on RDF and SPARQL , then maybe split work streams. Closely related anyway so 2 has little advantage.
ora: multiple WG -- unless there is a clear separation, then one is better.
… RDF , RDFS were two WG and was a bit confusing.
… bigger WG can have task forces - coordination is the key.
pchampin: one WG.
<TallTed> should note the current understanding of the group, in at least a few words, when closing these issues
pchampin: RDF/XML - mixed feelings about whether to include or not.
<gkellogg> RDFa can technically work on XML, not just HTML.
pchampin: may be "any XML serialization" so TriX-star would be better approach - includes datasets.
… addresses the "XML toolchain" even if not update RDF/XML.
ora: RDF/XML ... pass it's sell-by date. (scribe: +1)
… happy to leave it alone
gkellogg: compatibility issues if reusing existing reification hook.
… make RDF/XML "archaic"
… trix -- tighten up -- claim is use in stylesheet
pchampin: some perception that RDF-star "is" reification -- it's not.
<pchampin> PROPOSAL: mark the updating of RDF/XML as optional in the draft charter
Resolution: mark the updating of RDF/XML as optional in the draft charter
Action: pchampin to mark RDF/XML as optional in the charter
qkellogg: note CSV, TSV formats
… and CSVW
… some uptick in interest in CSVW
… need a way to give option to update
AndyS: can we enumerate the "documents in scope" so if the WG has the energy, then they can be done.
… (R2RML, SHACL, RDFa, JSON-LD)
… and OWL
pchampin: many possible documents
pchampin: will ask team for advice
Action: pchampin to ask in W3C about how broad the charter could be
<fabio> thank you!
<AndyS> Next meeting: December 3rd due to US Thanksgiving.