Meeting minutes
Announcements and newcomers
csarven: have been working on Linked Data stack for a while
… chairing the Solid CG, involved in WebID
… curious about what's coming from this group
Open actions
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: we have a number of open actions.. mostly for future reference. long time pending
… rather than going through each, does anyone have something to report on one of these actions?
… I have one but if anybody else?
olaf: Just for the record.. I haven't heard from Cambridge Semantics, Ontotext, Stardog
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: I do have something for danbri. I have tried reaching out. He did reply. Hope that the final report will be published on the CG page.
… We also talked briefly not directly related ot the action, the chartering we are working on.
… He has some concerns on the amount of the work the group is taking on.
AndyS: What were the questions?
pchampin: Some were.. you'll have describe the semantics of SPARQL.
… how do we deal with multiple edges I've also pointed him to the blogpost.
… I hope that explains our positions and some patterns dealing with that.
… That's basically the concerns that he has raised
AndyS: I can understand the discussions in the mailing list.
… That's an observation. Did he say how they can be resolved so we can go forwards?
pchampin: This was just ... didn't hav emuch time to develop the discussion
… We believe that there is enough interest in the RDF-star in the community. So, that's my position and shared by other people here.
… There is enough interest in RDF-star and join the WG.
gkellogg: The issue was publishing the final report on the CG page.
… It sounds like his objections to the charter for the WG is a different issue.
pchampin: When I asked him again for the report, he didn't object to the report. I think it'll be done soon.
pchampin: Does that answer the question?
gkellogg: I'm wondering if there is a need ot take the report wider to the group.
^ was AndyS?
gkellogg: The reason to publish was to get wider review.
… but those issues can be separated regarding the charter.
… It is like you said, what comes first the cart or the horse.. important to get the report out.
… Not sure there is more to do for the report to have it published.
pchampin: I didn't perceive any concerns or problems with the publishing of the CG report.
gkellogg: This is input for the WG .. not an invitation to rubber stamp.
pchampin: Creating the WG was the point. To be transparent, I mentioned the proposed charter and also wrt chairing.
… sent a probe to danbri with that respect. Whether this thing was ready to create a WG.. and therefore moving to REC.
pchampin: I'll probably encourage danbri to have the discussion on the mailing list.
… Whether that's the RDF-star mailing list or something else.. we do need ot have it soon to broaden the discussion for the SW community at large.
pchampin: Another issue? On the CG reports front?
… Hearing none.
… I propose we move on to chartering and review actions.
WG chartering
<pchampin> https://
<pchampin> https://
<pchampin> Andy to add missing SPARQL documents
pchampin: Issue 13 was completed. Thank you AndyS. I've merged the PR already.
… There is another document (CSV and TSC SPARQL result) that was not added. Was that deliberate?
AndyS: I can't remember. Remember looking at them.. But there is no problem with TSV or CSV? It is fine.
pchampin: I did add them as well..
… How to best quote triples in teh CSV. Even if it doesn't support it, it should be said. For the group decide.
… We can close that one (issue 13)
… after the call
<pchampin> https://
<pchampin> add explicit reference to RDF primer
<pchampin> PR: https://
pchampin: add explicit reference to RDF primer, in the list of non-normative reports.
… I pushed this PR shortly before the call. If you can review, please do.
<pchampin> https://
<pchampin> liaisons with other groups
pchampin: Addressed issue 10 for liaison with other groups
… with Property Graph schema WG at LDBC. Also related ISO group for Property Graph extension for SQL
<pchampin> PR: https://
pchampin: I added the links .. made another PR 18.
… Not so much for the CG itself but to include anything that would come up during the chartering process or the lifetime of htis group.
… What I had in mind was for the upcoming RDF canonicalization. We can't point yet but hopefully it exists. Starts to exists before/at the time with this WG. So I've put a link in the proposed charter to under the RDF-DEV CG item.
… Any questions/comments?
gkellogg: There seems to be activity in SPARQL 1.2 group.. I'm not sure where it is with regards to a charter. That's something that needs to be coordinated if there is an overalap.
pchampin: Or the more we claim for the spARQL specification
TallTed: I haven't seen anything like movement toward a SPARQL 1.2 WG charter. We should say if SPARQL 1.2 happens we should coordinate.
pchampin: Good point. I'll action myself.
Action: pchampin to add liaison with Sparql 1.2 CG
<pchampin> https://
csarven: may have missed some steps in the creation of the charter,
… but I noticed that RDFa 1.2 was not mentioned
… while a majority of concrete syntax are mentioned
… Was this discussed previously? What are the requirements to have this included?
… RDFa 1.0 and 1.1 are widely adopted.
<gkellogg> https://
pchampin: We have discussed RDFa and CSVW.
… There are so many RDF related specs and we can't possibly commit to all.
… We decided to focus on the WGs that RDF and SPARQL.
… it'd be a shame not to address this where people are interested in order to progress
… ew.g., some of us have worked with JSON-LD-Star.. and managed by another WG
<gkellogg> https://
pchampin: the decision was to leave the door open by mentioning that the group could adopt during its lifetime, requiring re-chartering.
… people interested in working on it should come to us.
… including it in the initial charter would could make it look unrealistic.
ora: there are serialization syntaxes and there is almost like a one way dependency
… so rdf-star doesn't need to depend on a particular serialization
… we work on the model so the key issues give the community at least one serialization syntax
… and other people can volunteer on the other stuff
… but rdf-star is not held back
pchampin: csarven's concern was ... indeed that I also agree with this dependency thing as you've put it.
gkellogg: We did discuss this with regards to JSON-LD
… there is a WG active
… which could get together to work on JSON-LD to include these features
… we also discussed RDFa CSVW.. there is no WG that's active within their scope. It seems like for a new WG to be chartered.
<Fabio> [leaving]. Will keep on reading the scribe. Sorry. Ciao!
<TallTed> It may be worth noting that "these serializations were chosen for our focus because..." in the charter doc, and being more explicit about accepting/adopting submissions of specs for other serializations
gkellogg: they could be included by recharter RDF-star WG.. but there need sto be preliminary work.
… JSON-LD-star there is improvements that can be done
… I'm interested in seeing what we can do to improve support for RDFa.
… There are supports for graph in RDFa
… There are serialization formats tha tthe WG did not do.. the best place for that work to happen in a group with intersted people
pchampin: The idea was to keep the charter tight so that the AC find it realistic
AndyS: I agree with the discussions so far. Within the charter.. there is a rather ??? with the specs. And ... might be active. When the group picks up too much. Exit from the group ??? RDFa related to RDF-star. It could be added to the RDF-star itself.
^ I'm sorry I couldn't scribe that well
<TallTed> might limit to "editorial errata" which won't require implementation changes so won't put a major gate on exiting CR
<AndyS> AndyS: The work on RDF Core/SPARQL WG specs includes errata work.
csarven: is it a requirement that such work should be part of a working group ?
<ora> RDF/XML should just die.
csarven: compared to RDF/XML, other syntaxes are more useful.
… Again, RDFa is largely used.
<AndyS> There are people that use and like it. YMMV.
pchampin: RDF/XML was a deliverable of the RDF group.. so we added notes saying that provided that there is enough involvement
… to answer you questoin on the necessity of a WG.. with JSON-LD there is a group that could take care of the JSON-LD star or 1.2
… That's not the case for RDFa or CSW..
… Our view is that this group will happily adopt if people want to work on it.
… and will consider bringing it to REC state.
AndyS: Could be through RDFa CG
gkellogg: There is not going to be critical mass behind RDF/XML to put something together but there could easily be for RDFa 1.2. For if CG is established, settle on syntax, publish a report, then that could be a reasonable thing for RDF-star WG to adopt after charter update
gkellogg: There is language in charters time allowing, the group will consider "these" documents..
… .the question is that the type of thing that should be added in rechartering.. or would that complicate what's there
… IMO ??? could all obe in that category if time allowed.
<AndyS> AndyS: There isn't anything blocking RDFa discussion either on RDF-DEV or here.
gkellogg: There may not be enough time for us to get to RDF/XML /s
pchampin: We can continue on the github issue.
… The choice was a bit arbitrary
… Initially for RDF and SPARQL WG
… and leave an opening for rechartering
… it is arbitrary but it allows us to draw the line
… and be open to new stuff if it comes up
gkellogg: To what AndyS suggested to open up discussion on RDFa and take up call time.. or establish a new group for that?
AndyS: If they're interested that's fine. Not until now but we don't take up on others' interest
pchampin: csarven raised that as well
… We can see in the community to see if there is more interest.
… Just to be clear, this call and "task force" .. there is nothing formal about. We're from the RDF-DEV.. and for more focused discussion on RDF-star.. and this call and people here came up from shared interest to writ eup the report.
… the scope of the CG is larger so good to check
… we had to focus on getting things done
… yes, if people are interested, we can piggyback on this call to discuss
… so, bottom line is calling for people interested...
Schedule next call
pchampin: decided no to fix every two weeks.. but adhoc based on requirements.
… I have one action that can be handled that doesn't need much discussion. SPARQL group has liasoain on. besides discussing with danbri
… do we need to discuss WG chairs than later
… otherwise 2-3 weeks from now is ...
<olaf> let's pencil down two weeks from now
gkellogg: As I recal there are people that wanted to participate .. if we leave out two weeks that might help
pchampin: Not sure wha tyou mean by pencil down
<olaf> okay, then three weeks
<rivettp> I do have another call every other week
olaf: suggestion is to put it two weeks from now but three weeks is fine too
<rivettp> so would not be able t make 3 weeks
PROPOSED: next call on 25th of march
+1
<olaf> +1
<doerthe> +1
<Dominik_T> +1
<ora> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<rivettp> -1
<AndyS> +1
<csarven> +1
<TallTed> +1 25th is fine
rivettp: Mind the daylight changes.
pchampin: oooooohhhh
Resolution: next call on 25th of march
pchampin: will look into it when I do the proper date
<AndyS> Bye!