11 February 2022


AndyS, doerthe, fabio_vitali, gkellogg, olaf, ora, pchampin, TallTed
olaf, pchampin

Meeting minutes

Announcements and newcomers

pchampin: no newcomers
… blog post has been published
… feedback on the CG mailing list
… additionally, there was a question by Pat Hayes
… who asked for a pointer to the RDF-star semantics
… which means that we may get some feedback in the future from him

Next call

pchampin: how to deal with our biweekly schedule?

<AndyS> No opinion. No problem with either.

olaf: I don't have a strong feeling. I still have weekly meeting in my agenda, deleting entries when appropriate.

ora: I have a conflict in 2 weeks time.

pchampin: next 2 weeks not convenient
… most of the work/discussion related to the charter can be done offline

gkellogg: next meeting on March 4, now

william: that would not work for me

pchampin: using the other weeks is not working for pete rivett

<pchampin> PROPOSED: wait 3 weeks until next call, then resume biweekly

TallTed: I will keep weekly open
… because the biweekly meetings hopped to other weeks
… therefore, better to keep the weekly meeting open

gkellogg: idea can be to keep it scheduled weekly, with the option to either keep the weekly meeting short or even cancel on demand

<pchampin> PROPOSED: wait 3 weeks until next call, then resume to weekly (expecting regular cancellation)

<olaf> +1

<pchampin> +1

<TallTed> +1

<fabio_vitali> +1

<doerthe> +1

<william> +1

<ora> +1

<AndyS> +1

<gkellogg> +1

Resolution: wait 3 weeks until next call, then resume to weekly (expecting regular cancellation)

Open actions

pchampin: quite a bunch of open actions

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/247

pchampin: ping DanB about publishing the repüort on the CG Web page
… pinged him again today
… he was/is on vacation

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/246

olaf: reach out to Cambridge Semantics (Anzo) action

<TallTed> I suggest reviewing issues in "least recently updated" order. Typically allows closing (or reviving) the most stale. https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc

olaf: I contacted them but they have not responded yet
… can send a reminder


olaf: we decided to leave this open until we get their report
… Ontotext promised a report ; Stardog needs to discuss this in the company

AndyS: with the charter coming up, we can send a reminder saying that we are going to do this

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/243

<pchampin> AWS blog

ora: working on the blog post, not done yet
… too many distractions

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/241

<pchampin> Corese

pchampin: was left open until we have an impl. report
… which will be coming

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/245

<pchampin> CG blog posts

pchampin: also more a reminder
… scope of the blog post was reduced because the post was already big enough

AndyS: there is a new PR
… it can be merged

<pchampin> PR https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/251

AndyS: There are some tests for annotation syntax in SPARQL-star
… but these have been wrong
… the PR fixes them

<pchampin> PR https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/250

pchampin: there was another PR
… it was merged
… it was about relative links in the report, which ended up broken when the final report was published under a different address

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

pchampin: now to open actions on the charter

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/pull/12

gkellogg: title of the issue is not comprehensive
… should be about any other related serialization formats

pchampin: made a PR, several weeks ago, approved by gkellogg

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

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/pull/11

<pchampin> address RDF/XML conditionnaly

pchampin: same for this issue about RDF/XML, a PR is available for this one as well
… idea is to be flexible in the charter about what we do about RDF/XML

WG chartering

AndyS: Wonder how we can get some tempo going?
… there is a 7-point list about the chartering, we are currently at step 1 or 2?

pchampin: link to that list?

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

AndyS: there are some external steps there
… do we need a complete draft of the charter for them?

pchampin: no
… the W3C strategy team is aware of this ongoing work on RDF-star
… part of point 3 has been done already
… have to check with Ivan about community input

pchampin: blocking issue has been that there is some boring work on the charter
… include all the missing docs from the SPARQL WG
… these should be mentioned in the charter because these will need to point to the updated RECs
… it would be efficient if someone could take this action

AndyS: I can take care of it

Action: AndyS to add missing SPARQL documents in the charter proposal

AndyS: and then we can ping the AC

pchampin: In the meantime, everyone here, please take a look at the draft, in particular the part about Turtle

AndyS: better to first email the AC before reaching out to the wider community

pchampin: next call of the strategy team is next Tuesday
… notify them in that meeting
… and ensure that it is okay to send to the AC

gkellogg: Did we decide to merge the open PR?

pchampin: yes
… will do right after this call

AndyS: having seen all the discussion on the mailing list,
… wonder if a use case / primer-style doc an early deliverable of the WG?
… not REC track, just a Note
… as a possible way to get these discussions more focused

pchampin: indeed, currently the charter only lists the REC track docs
… good idea to explicitly list the RDF Primer as an early deliverable

<fabio_vitali> good for me

pchampin: as a way to converge the discussions towards a common goal

Action: pchampin to add an explicit item about RDF primer in the charter

<Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about another thing

AndyS: licensing?
… It is possible to put all specs under a permissive license

ora: forking of specs was a long runing nightmare

pchampin: the new software and document license as mentioned by the charter is considered as permissive
… will ask the question at the strategy team meeting
… Question of the chairs is still open.
… not sure what is the common way to contact/attract potential chairs

ora: all WGs in which I was, there was no demoncratic process for choosing the chair
… the decision came from W3C

AndyS: more effective to approach people in private

pchampin: question then is, who is in the position to have this discussion?

<fabio_vitali> one should first have a feeling if there are willing candidates. Then one should have a feeling if there are TWO or more willing candidates. If we have 0, we have a problem. If there are TWO or more, we have a problem. Otherwise, we do not have a problem.

pchampin: ora you mention yourself as an option

ora: yes, still on the table but needs to be confirmed internally

gkellogg: strong preference for having two chairs
… one chair should come from industry
… to get larger by-in from vendors

pchampin: with ora we have someone from industry
… which means more flexibility on the second name
… We actively need to work on this question. The RDF-star mailing list is probably a too wide forum to have this discussion

Summary of action items

  1. AndyS to add missing SPARQL documents in the charter proposal
  2. pchampin to add an explicit item about RDF primer in the charter

Summary of resolutions

  1. wait 3 weeks until next call, then resume to weekly (expecting regular cancellation)
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 142 (Tue Jun 1 16:59:13 2021 UTC).