Announcements and newcomers
pchampin: out of date implementations removed - rust one updated
gkellogg: changes to test URIs.
<pchampin> update RDF* paper on arXiv
pchampin: Olaf updated the RDF* paper.
… action done
Publishing a final report
pchampin: Has a more formal standing as "final"
… license is slightly different.
… authors will be contacted to agree
… report copied to W3C website
… needs CG RDF-DEV action (DanBri)
<pchampin> Final specification agreement
pchampin: 2 decisions : publish as is ; publish as final report
<olaf> Apologies for being late!
<pchampin> PROPOSED: publish a new version of the CG report, as a 'final report'
<olaf> +1 (and another +1 from Ora who sends his regrets for today)
Resolution: publish a new version of the CG report, as a 'final report'
tallted: we can still respond with issues and PRs
pchampin: yes - not immutable
AndyS: this does apply also to the tests?
gkellogg: no, the tests are independant
pchampin: RDF/XML - mark as optional work
… a few people have expressed interest in doing the work.
gatemezing: is there a way to phrase the feedback/interest in RDF/XML.
pchampin: will have "update that doc if WG has time/volunteers to do the work"
fabio_vitali: wondering about RDF-star and named graphs
pchampin: spec allows quoted triples in named graphs
… abstract syntax covers graphs and datasets
AndyS: star-bit aside, named graphs in RDF are just containers
… if you want to add a vocabulary, you can
… but that adds assumptions that are not shared by everyone using named graphs
doerthe: important but rather broad to tackle here the moment (c.f. N3)
<fabio_vitali> Thanks Dörthe
pchampin: our spec refers to note about RDF datasets semantics from RDF 1.1.
… let's not make it requirement for the WG
AndyS: WG have a history of not strictly sticking to their charter
… I'm nervous about mentioning it in the charter; may give too high expectations
… And anyway I would be suprised if it didn't come up
<fabio_vitali> I think it is an inteersting + appropriate topic for this specific Wg. I would be surprised if it was proposed by some other ones
<pchampin> WG practice
pchampin: F2F meetings
… reflect the "new normal"
<gatemezing> I don't understand the concept of "synchronize meeting"
<pchampin> guideline for added features
<olaf> Have to leave early today. I wish everyone nice and relaxing holidays!
<gatemezing> Enjoy olaf !
pchampin: CSVW and others
… do not envisage separate WGs for these
… may be a lot of work
… AC and W3C mgt may be concerned
… (advice from IvanH)
… idea: plan for recharting as it becomes clear what docs may be touched.
<gatemezing> The group will probably upgrade the current SemWeb stack https://
gkellogg: work on RDFa (is there an active CG?) could be done by WG
… something for the recharter point?
Action: pchampin to implement Ivan Herman's proposal as described in https://
pchampin: Next meeting -- 7th Jan.
<rivettp> +1 for 7 Jan
<gatemezing> Thanks all, and thanks the chairs
<fabio_vitali> Ciao! Have a nice end-of-year period!