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://
pchampin: ping DanB about publishing the repüort on the CG Web page
… pinged him again today
… he was/is on vacation
<pchampin> https://
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://
olaf: I contacted them but they have not responded yet
… can send a reminder
https://
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://
<pchampin> AWS blog
ora: working on the blog post, not done yet
… too many distractions
<pchampin> https://
<pchampin> Corese
pchampin: was left open until we have an impl. report
… which will be coming
<pchampin> https://
<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://
AndyS: There are some tests for annotation syntax in SPARQL-star
… but these have been wrong
… the PR fixes them
<pchampin> PR https://
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://
pchampin: now to open actions on the charter
<pchampin> https://
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://
<pchampin> https://
<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://
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