W3C

RDF-star

08 Apr 2022

Attendees

Present
AndyS, Dominik_T, olaf, ora, pchampin
Regrets
Fabio Vitali
Chair
pchampin
Scribe
olaf, pchampin

Meeting minutes

Open actions

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

<pchampin> RDF-dev calendar

<pchampin> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/677cd671-7ce4-41eb-b839-ce605793e943

pchampin: W3C calendar infrastructure used for the agenda now
… advantage is that it allows us to subscribe to the ICS stream
… future meetings will be added in that calendar
… No answer from danbri about publishing the CG report
… might resort to Twitter

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

pchampin: adding an explicit rationale for the (types of) docs included in the charter
… will be addressed soon

WG chartering

pchampin: two things about the charter ...
… first, advanced notice was emailed to the AC and, then, also to the SemWeb mailing lists
… so far no discussion on the list :-/

ora: informed the Amazon AC rep
… who will vote in favor

AndyS: sentiment on the mailing list is full of CFP

pchampin: as an aside, the CFP-related issue was discussed
… there was an earlier discussion that CFPs are accepted on that mailing list
… the list was kept mainly for historical reasons
… logical would have been that the traffic would have moved to the RDF-DEV list

<AndyS> RDF-dev maling list -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dev/

pchampin: one more proposal to gather expressions of interest or disinterest

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

pchampin: for which an issue will be created

<pchampin> expression of support tag

pchampin: such a tag was created in the repo for another charter
… with the purpose to enable organizations to create issues that represent their expressions of support
… that was a good instrument when bringing the charter in front of the AC
… question would be where we ask people for creating their issue

ora: there is a SemWeb group on LinkedIn

pchampin: right, there have been some lively discussions there

<pchampin> STRAWPOLL: create an "expression of interest" label on the charter repo, and ask people to create "issues" with that label

<pchampin> +1

<AndyS> +1

<TallTed> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<olaf> +1 good idea!

<ora> +1

Resolution: create an "expression of interest" label on the charter repo, and ask people to create "issues" with that label

AndyS: expressions of interest happened within six weeks

Action: pchampin to create the issue template for "expression of interest"

<pchampin> add text for backward compatibility

pchampin: Andy suggested to mention backwards compatibility explicitly in the charter

TallTed: Is it expression of interest or ... support?

pchampin: support

AndyS: It is only about support for the WG, not for the currently proposed solution

pchampin: There was a question of versioning

<TallTed> "expression of support for WG" a/k/a "expression of interest in potential of RDF-star" a/k/a ...

<pchampin> Versioning

pchampin: the deliverables in the charter are called "... v.1.2"

AndyS: Another option would be to call it "RDF-star, an extension to RDF 1.1"
… downside of this idea is that it might exclude taking care of the errata within the WG

pchampin: another downside is that it would allow implementations to stick to RDF 1.1 and still be "up to date"

AndyS: it would be nice if there was more RDF work

pchampin: saying that this is an optional extension may be less controversial, but it may also contribute to the fragmentation of the ecosystem

olaf: I don't see any reason at the moment why it shouldn't be called RDF 1.2
… if a long discussion started, then we may reconsider

pchampin: question about chairs

ora: yes, it is okay to put my (Ora's) name as a potential chair

Action: pchampin to add Ora Lassila as one of the expected chairs

pchampin: last open issue is about the timeline

<pchampin> Timeline

pchampin: typical timeline for WGs is 2-4 years
… for this one, it would make sense to go for the higher end
… because there are a lot of docs to be updated by this WG
… also not sure how the deadlines for the individual deliverables should be set
… all at the end? ...or scattered within the overall timeline?

ora: getting nightmares thinking of 4 years
… if properly scoped, it may be possible in 2 years

pchampin: nowadays start with more mature input than in the early days
… so, yes, maybe it's reasonable to schedule it in 2 years
… but also required a lot of man power

<TallTed> Durations below 2 years may make sense when associated CG or similar is able to produce something the broader community accepts as near to CR. I don't think our planned scope will be fully achievable in less than 2 years. We might target 2 years and state up front that we see potential need for recharter/extension because of fairly broad scope.

ora: establish an optimistic expectation
… if we say "4 years", then it will take 4 years

pchampin: okay, there seems to be some agreement or sentiment that 2 years should be the goal

<pchampin> STRAWPOLL: plan for a 2 years charter, planning of rechartering if necessary

<pchampin> +1

<olaf> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<ora> +1

<TallTed> +1

Resolution: plan for a 2 years charter, planing of rechartering if necessary

pchampin: next question is about setting a deadline for every doc
… no point in having a granularity smaller than 6 months

ora: uncomfortable with the charter specifying such deadlines
… because the WG may realize that something comes up
… preferrable to have the charter mention such dates more as suggestions rather than mandatory

pchampin: yes, agree

<TallTed> "Target timeline" is common in charters, tho rarely satisfied in my experience

<TallTed> ("Target timeline" might not be the label that's been used, but it's the meaning.)

pchampin: when will the next call be?

Schedule next call

pchampin: not possible in 3 weeks because of the Web Conf.
… weeks before hard as well
… so, proposal is to have the next call in 4 weeks from now

<pchampin> PROPOSAL: have our next call on the 6th of May

<pchampin> +1

<TallTed> +1

<olaf> +1

<Dominik_T> +0 (I have a scheduled visit to the doctor, I don't know if I will make it)

<ora> +0

Resolution: have our next call on the 6th of May (unless something unexpected happens in between)

<pchampin> HAPPY 10 YEARS RDF* :)

Summary of action items

  1. pchampin to create the issue template for "expression of interest"
  2. pchampin to add Ora Lassila as one of the expected chairs

Summary of resolutions

  1. create an "expression of interest" label on the charter repo, and ask people to create "issues" with that label
  2. plan for a 2 years charter, planing of rechartering if necessary
  3. have our next call on the 6th of May (unless something unexpected happens in between)
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 142 (Tue Jun 1 16:59:13 2021 UTC).