As suggested by @afs in #24 (comment)

As decided during today's call: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2022-06-10.html#r01

The Apache Software Foundation supports the creation of the RDF-star working group as described in the proposed charter.

Apache Jena has tracked the work of the RDF-start CG and included this tracking implementation in releases.

As decided during today's call: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2022-04-08.html#a02

due 8 Dec 2022

For the RDF Canonicalization and Hashing WG, interested organizations were encouraged to express their support by opening an issue with a specific tag. I think this was a good idea.

Should we do the same for the RDF-star WG?

Pros:

• historically, they have always been separate WGs
• this would move from one quite ambitious charter to two more reasonable ones
• SPARQL 1.2 would first have to align to RDF 1.1 before tackling RDF-star...
• ... which would require updating all SPARQL recommendations, not just the ones that we touched in the RDF-star CG report

Cons

• my feeling is that people are interested in RDF-star because of SPARQL-star, so separating them might be counter-productive
• this may cause SPARQL to lag behind RDF even more than it is today

We need to setup the timeline of the WG

Insee supports the creation of the RDF-star working group as described in the proposed charter.

Insee has been publishing linked statistical data and metadata for 15 years, and we have dealt with a number of practical cases of representing such information as RDF. We believe that RDF-star is an elegant way to contextualize semantic resources and we support the advancement of the specification under the umbrella of a W3C working group.

The current (2021-09-03) draft text includes RDF/XML in the list "The Working Group will deliver the following W3C normative specifications:"

To date, there has been little effort on RDF/XML.

The charter might want to make this conditional: "The WG MAY revise RDF/XML ..."

There is a precedence here. There is no RDF/XML extension for RDF Datasets mainly, as I recall, due to lack of enthusiasm.

https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues/new/choose

This comes off as a kind of "lobbying the W3C AC" move, or like those awful UI patterns where you get asked to either "Opt in!" or "Ask me later", without a "No thanks" pathway...

due 22 Dec 2022

due 17 Jun 2022

Currently, the deliverable of the charter are versioned 1.2, but this is tagged for discussion.

RDF-star is arguably a major milestone, all the more if we open the spec for additional features.

So, should we be bold and go for 2.0?

this was discussed during today's call: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2022-02-11.html#a02

due 8 Dec 2022

Fano Ramparany from Orange supports the creation of the RDF-star working group as described in the proposed charter.

RDF-star is to our knowledge the most mature extension of RDF for annotating edges. We are looking forward to see RDF-star be part of the W3C semantic web technologies suite.

assigned to @afs
this was discussed during today's call: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2022-02-11.html#a01

should point to https://www.w3.org/2021/12/rdf-star.html

Gregg Kellogg supports the creation of the RDF-star working group as described in the proposed charter.

I have participated in the Community Group discussions and edited a number of the documents. Additionally, proposed a JSON-LD variant (https://json-ld.github.io/json-ld-star). Additionally, I have implemented and provided implementation reports for all proposed changes in the Ruby RDF ecosystem (SPARQL-star, Turtle-star, JSON-LD-star, and the others).

I would be willing to continue as an editor for one or more specifications impacted by RDF-star and to create and refine implementations of those specifications.

Quentin Reul supports the creation of the RDF-star working group as described in the proposed charter.

As a knowledge engineer (in both academia and enterprise), I have encountered issues with the RDF reification. More specifically, we often have had to create intermediary objects when needing to provide information about relationships. RDF-star provides a solution to this problem.

Some aspect that would be interesting to further investigate is the relationship between RDF-star and OWL to define ontologies.

Kind regards,

Quentin

Thematix Partners supports the creation of the RDF-star working group as described in the proposed charter.

Thematix is a boutique consultancy that provides business architecture, data management, and knowledge graph-related services to our clients. Some of our clients are implementing applications that are ontology driven using the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and that integrate data from a variety of back-end resources. These applications are increasingly sophisticated and need to incorporate analytics of various sorts, which would benefit from a combination of RDF vocabularies/OWL ontologies with machine learning. We look forward to seeing the RDF* effort move forward as a standard.

See #8
The idea is to explicitly restrict the scope to purely editorial errata.
The rationale is that substantial errata may derail the group to technical discussions not related to RDF-star.

this was decided during today's call: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2022-03-04.html#a01

The KRDB Research Centre for Knowledge and Data of the Faculty of Computer Science of the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy, supports the creation of the RDF-star working group as described in the proposed charter.
Our research centre already participated to W3C several working groups in the area of Semantic Web. We are interested in foundational issues that may arise from the new RDF-star specification.
cheers
--e.

Enrico Franconi
KRDB Research Centre for Knowledge and Data
Faculty of Computer Science
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
[email protected]
http://www.inf.unibz.it/~franconi/
http://krdb.eu
+39-0471-016-120

(The current draft has some general placeholder text for Timeline and is not a specific proposal.)

We all have to accept that face-to-face meetings have an environmental travel cost.

I suggest that no implication of physical F2F meetings is included and the WG can decide.

Personally, I hope the working group will decide on remote-only.

due 27 May 2022

As discussed during todays: call: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2022-06-10.html#x202

set all RDF FPWD to 6 months and all SPARQL FPWD to 12 months (or all to 6 months?)

This is a proposal to include RDFa Core 1.2 as a normative specification in the charter that the WG should deliver.

I've reviewed what I believe to me most relevant minutes that touches on RDFa: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-12-17.html#x141 however it is unclear to me as to why RDFa 1.2 is not listed as one of the work items alongside the other concrete RDF syntaxes [rdf11-concepts] as a deliverable.

Are there technical, political or other barriers for this?

RDFa 1.0 and 1.1 are widely adopted. I believe is important to "upgrade" all concrete RDF syntaxes for uniform use going forward. There is - I for one - interest in contributing to the development of RDFa Core 1.2.

due 8 Dec 2022

There has been some discussion [1,2] on making RDF a "living standard" by leveraging the new W3C Process from 2021. The general consensus, as I see it is: why not, but be careful not to make RDF too unstable.
I believe that a subgroup of the WG would need to think about it and produce, early on, a WG note about how to deal with new features in an acceptable way.

What do others think about it?

[1] w3c/EasierRDF#88
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2021Sep/0006.html

Although they go further, these specifications also serialize RDF, and include some minor cleanup issues that will never be addressed without an appropriate WG.

(those coming from the RDF and SPARQL WG)
as decided during today's call: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2022-03-25.html#a01

"extendions" -> "extensions"

Idea of external organization:

• groups involved in PG standardization? (e.g. https://ldbcouncil.org/gql-community/pgswg/)

due 27 May 2022

SEB group supports the creation of the RDF-star working group as described in the proposed charter.

RDF-star is a powerful approach to manage contextual statements without creating proper N-ary concepts (and so far, without bringing complexity to the domain model).

Contextual things could be geographical (hemispheres, countries, cities), time-related (a statement could be true during a period), or person-related (like a profile).

This kind of knowledge engineering could be implemented with the current standard but, as mentioned earlier, it is too much complicated to explain the domain model to the developers or stakeholders. Other technologies which allow this kind of implementation (e.g., property graphs) are not standard and would limit interoperability with other ontologies and knowledge graphs.