RDF-star

Announcements and newcomers

pchampin: new bot on the IRC
… ghurlbot
… should write of title github issues that are mentioned
… Different topic: tried "Matrix" as an alternative to IRC

<fabio> hello

Open actions

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

pchampin: still archived open items

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

pchampin: about publishing the final report
… still on it
… but not working to have danbri push the publish button

<TallTed> ghurlbot, discussing w3c/rdf-star

<ghurlbot> TallTed, OK

<TallTed> #247

<ghurlbot> Issue 247 ping DanBri about publishing the final report on the CG page (pchampin), action

<TallTed> :-)

gkellogg: danbri may still wait for opposition against the chartering

pchampin: suprised that there was no discussion on the SemWeb mailing list in response to the email there, about one month ago

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

<Pierre-Antoine> ghurlbot, discussing w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter

<ghurlbot> Pierre-Antoine, OK

<Pierre-Antoine> #29

<ghurlbot> Issue 29 Add Ora Lassila as one of the expected chair (pchampin), action

pchampin: PR to explicitly add Ora as a possible chair

<Pierre-Antoine> #27

<ghurlbot> Issue 27 Add text to clearly state that existing RDF 1.1 data will remain valid in syntax and semantics. (pchampin), action

pchampin: while Ora agreed during the last call, the PR is still pending, waiting for Ora's approval

pchampin: next PR, for issue 27
… no, oops, the PR still needs to be created

<Pierre-Antoine> > The group should ensure that any RDF 1.1 data remains valid in this new version. Furthermore, any RDF or RDFS entailment drawn under RDF 1.1 semantics should also remain valid in this new version.

pchampin: it is actually merged

<Pierre-Antoine> that was PR #31

<ghurlbot> Pull Request 31 [closed] make it explicit that the group will aim for backward compatibility (pchampin)

<Pierre-Antoine> #25

<ghurlbot> Issue 25 WG timeline ? (pchampin), action

<Pierre-Antoine> addressed by #33

<ghurlbot> Pull Request 33 set timeline to 24 months, as resolved for #25 (pchampin)

pchampin: PR about proposing timeline
… editors have approved this PR already

<Pierre-Antoine> #28

<ghurlbot> Issue 28 add an explicit rationale about the choice of documents to include (pchampin), action

pchampin: but it will be left open until begin of next week, in case someone else still wants to chime in

<Pierre-Antoine> PR #32

<ghurlbot> Pull Request 32 explain the rationale behing the list of specifications (pchampin)

pchampin: PR about issue 28, editors have approved that one as well; will be left open until next Monday

<Pierre-Antoine> #26

<ghurlbot> Issue 26 Request expressions of support (pchampin), action

pchampin: and merged then (unless discussion emerges)
… To address issue 26, email was sent to the SemWeb mailing list.
… some expressions of support have come in already

<Pierre-Antoine> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/labels/expression_of_support

pchampin: currently five

olaf: KRBD works on the Ontop system. I found out that they published something about R2RML-star

WG chartering

TallTed: suggestion to create labels for expressions of dissent
… and neutrality

gkellogg: yes some more neutral naming of the tag / type of issue

pchampin: we decided on "expression of support" because that's what had been done
… for the RCH WG

<TallTed> "opinion about WG ratification" { "neutral about WG ratification", "supports WG ratification", "opposes WG ratification"}

olaf: I would propose to add another template
… makes it easier to filter
… "expression_of_opposition" ?

<TallTed> or { expression_of_support, expression_of_opposition, expression_of_neutrality }

TallTed: no strong opinion, just to address danbri's concern

<Pierre-Antoine> PROPOSED: add symmetric label + issue template with 'expression_of_opposition'

<Pierre-Antoine> +0.5

<gkellogg> +0.5

<olaf> +0.75

<fabio> +1

<Dominik_T> +0.5

<TallTed> +1

<Doerthe> +1

Resolution: add symmetric label + issue template with 'expression_of_opposition'

pchampin: charter in good shape (modulo the pending PRs)
… want to push it one step further
… the advisory committee has been informed one month ago
… next, ask opinion from W3C management (?)
… W3C meets every Wednesday
… could put that one their next agenda
… what is blocking still is the lack of chairs
… it is generally possible to have only one chair, but not advisable
… so, it is urgent to find someone else

<TallTed> Roles have different concerns: chair shepherds group process; editors shepherd/edit the documents.

pchampin: is anyone here interested?

<fabio> you do not want me, but I am available for low-level menial jobs, if I may be useful somehow

pchampin: Olaf?

olaf: I have already too little time, and this would be very time consuming
… also, I (partily) affiliated with Amazon, like Ora, which might not look good

gkellogg: Is it necessary for us to have identified chairs now?
… maybe the second chair may be identified later

pchampin: for the vote by the advisory committee there needs to be a well-defined team
… not having identified all chairs may send a bad signal to the AC
… have chairs from industry is better for the AC
… on the other hand, having no chair from academy may be problematic because academics may not want to join
… there may also be more than two chairs
… with Ora more on the RDF side, it would be good to have someone who is more on the SPARQL
… someone from the triple store vendors?

OpenLink?

TallTed: no, my plate is more than full

pchampin: Vladimir from Ontotext?

olaf: I don't know him that well, but it does not hurt to ask

<Pierre-Antoine> zazuko.com

<Pierre-Antoine> Adrian Gschwend

<fabio> ciao!

<Pierre-Antoine> PROPOSED: let's have our next call 2 weeks from now: 2022-05-20

<gkellogg> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<olaf> +1

<Doerthe> +1

<fabio> +1

<Pierre-Antoine> +1

<TallTed> +0

Resolution: let's have our next call 2 weeks from now: 2022-05-20

<fabio> ciao again!