Re: 10th TREE CG meeting tomorrow at 14:00 CET

Hi all,

The 11th TREE CG meeting will be on the *20th of December at 14:00 CET*.

The next TREE read-through session will be the *6st of December at 14:00 
CET*. Last time we left off at tree:ViewDescription.*
*

A small report on the productive 10th CG meeting of today:

  * named graphs + shape template and 
CBDhttps://github.com/TREEcg/specification/pull/91 has been merged

  * Sander Van Dooren is going to do a first proposal for a PR for the 
README cfr. https://github.com/TREEcg/specification/issues/89

  * Pieter Colpaert is going to do a first proposal for a PR on 
redirects, opening a new chapter for implementation guidelines on top of 
HTTP https://github.com/TREEcg/specification/issues/86 and related 
https://github.com/TREEcg/specification/issues/92

  * Issue https://github.com/TREEcg/specification/issues/76 – Adding the 
not operator as a Relation class → resolution proposed in the issue

  * Issue 76 also opened up the discussion of what to do with 
tree:values on named nodes, for which Thomas Bergwinkl had #77 opened. A 
resolution proposed in that issue.

  * Side note on issues #76 and #77: Qualified values were at some point 
part of the spec - not sure anymore why they were removed, but still 
seems like an interesting idea to Pieter: 
https://github.com/TREEcg/specification/commit/d5836991b2450ac4129e0f51c2b036dd405976be 


  * We started discussing a roadmap for standard test suite: 
https://github.com/TREEcg/specification/issues/97

  * We advanced on the long-standing issue #85 on how to properly 
describe search trees that allow clients not to have to keep full 
history. By next CG we should have a new iteration towards potential 
solutions, but requiring: i) a backwards compatible solution; ii) being 
able to do simple stuff quickly, and raise complexity as you go; and 
iii) allowing clients to keep state by not storing the full history, but 
somehow just keep where they left off.

  * We did not dive into conditional imports in issue #90 as expected 
due to time constraints


Kind regards,

Pieter


On 28/11/2023 10:14, Pieter Colpaert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Time flies! Already our 10th TREE CG meeting tomorrow at 14:00 CET. 
> Call link: 
> https://teams.microsoft.com/_#/l/meetup-join/19:meeting_NDkwMWZlMzMtM2FjZi00MjZhLTlhZTMtNjAwMjU5Yjc3YWVi@thread.v2/0?context=%7B%22Tid%22%3A%22a72d5a72-25ee-40f0-9bd1-067cb5b770d4%22%2C%22Oid%22%3A%22074b6191-940e-49de-964e-f2919f3f8501%22%2C%22MessageId%22%3A%220%22%7D&anon=true&deeplinkId=f7f5ca1a-7b7c-40af-a172-83816933eac9
>
> We’re starting to get into a really good pace to advance the spec and 
> I like it! Tomorrow we’d mainly merge #91 if no further comments are 
> provided, and I’ll do a call for volunteers to open a PR on #86 
> (redirections), and to advance #89 (a better README.md).
>
> We’ll then continue on mainly trying to advance the discussions on 
> graphs vs. search trees which I’m currently not sure whether we’re 
> converging towards a certain solution. I guess tomorrow’s meeting 
> should mainly be about listing the potential solutions and listing our 
> requirements on what our solution should be able to support.
>
> You can find the work in progress slides here: 
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13TeYhoBec9C8ocncKIOTsB0320P6hZauki8x0KazEmw/edit#slide=id.g29742a7c7c5_0_2
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Pieter
>
-- 
https://pietercolpaert.be/
+32486747122