<pchampin> RDF-dev calendar
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: adding an explicit rationale for the (types of) docs included in the charter
… will be addressed soon
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://
pchampin: one more proposal to gather expressions of interest or disinterest
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
<olaf> +1 good idea!
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?
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: 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: 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
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
<Dominik_T> +0 (I have a scheduled visit to the doctor, I don't know if I will make it)
Resolution: have our next call on the 6th of May (unless something unexpected happens in between)
<pchampin> HAPPY 10 YEARS RDF* :)