RDF-star

Announcements and newcomers

Open actions

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

Conformance section

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/3

Action: AndyS to make a PR to address issue #3

Debunking RDF-star myths in the intro

<fabio> hello

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/64

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/219

<<>> 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> accusatio

<fabio> I have it in Latin, sorry

gkellogg: support adding clarification text.

<fabio> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excusatio_non_petita,_accusatio_manifesta

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

<pchampin> +1

<TallTed> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<AndyS> +1

<Doerthe> +1

<fabio> +1

<ora> +1

<ora> sorry

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

WG chartering

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

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues/1

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.

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues/2

<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

<pchampin> +1

<fabio> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<AndyS> +1

<Doerthe> +1

<TallTed> +1

<ora> +1

Resolution: mark the updating of RDF/XML as optional in the draft charter

Action: pchampin to mark RDF/XML as optional in the charter

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues/6

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

AndyS: RIF

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.