IRC log of rdf-star on 2023-01-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:59:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
16:59:28 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/01/12-rdf-star-irc
16:59:28 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:59:29 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
16:59:30 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-star
16:59:42 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:59:49 [rubensworks]
present+
17:00:01 [AZ]
present+
17:00:49 [gtw]
present+
17:00:49 [Dominik_T]
Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
17:00:49 [pchampin]
present+
17:00:55 [Timothe]
present+
17:00:56 [pchampin]
meeting: RDF-star WG
17:01:01 [pchampin]
chair: ktk
17:01:20 [gkellogg]
present+
17:01:24 [Enrico]
Enrico has joined #rdf-star
17:01:29 [Enrico]
Present+
17:01:39 [TallTed]
present+
17:02:17 [remiceres]
remiceres has joined #rdf-star
17:02:47 [ktk]
present+
17:02:59 [remiceres]
present+
17:03:14 [gkellogg]
scribe+ gkellogg
17:03:20 [AndyS]
present+
17:03:23 [Dominik_T]
Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
17:03:29 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-star
17:03:37 [Souri]
present+
17:03:40 [Dominik_T]
present+
17:04:10 [gkellogg]
topic: approve minutes from last meeting
17:04:34 [pchampin]
https://www.w3.org/2023/01/05-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:04:54 [AndyS]
zakim, who is here?
17:04:54 [Zakim]
Present: rubensworks, AZ, gtw, pchampin, Timothe, gkellogg, Enrico, TallTed, ktk, remiceres, AndyS, Souri, Dominik_T
17:04:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Souri, Dominik_T, remiceres, Enrico, gkellogg, AZ, RRSAgent, Zakim, rubensworks, TallTed, AndyS, csarven, gtw, ktk, Timothe, ghurlbot, agendabot, rhiaro, pchampin,
17:04:56 [Zakim]
... driib, Tpt
17:05:40 [gkellogg]
ktk: minutes approved.
17:05:50 [Doerthe]
Doerthe has joined #rdf-star
17:05:59 [gkellogg]
... There were IRC issues, so some stuff is missing.
17:06:31 [pchampin]
ora's email: https://www.w3.org/mid/FAC77CD1-F177-4548-9138-46EAA89706A8@amazon.com
17:06:37 [gkellogg]
... A couple of things Ora brought up: semantics, and schema definition.
17:06:48 [Doerthe]
p+
17:07:10 [pchampin]
q+
17:08:31 [gkellogg]
gkellogg: suggest we get started on repos for FPWDs.
17:08:51 [gkellogg]
pchampin: I think we could publish some FPWDs for some of the specs.
17:08:58 [AndyS]
ack pchampin
17:08:59 [Doerthe]
No, I wanted to write present+ and did not do that
17:09:21 [gkellogg]
... FPWD is not committing to the finished work or even a consensus.
17:09:37 [gkellogg]
... We can always re-name repos, if the short names change.
17:09:46 [gkellogg]
... Big issue is naming editors for the specs.
17:10:06 [AndyS]
present+ Doerthe
17:10:16 [gkellogg]
... On a related point, I think we can decide on names. I laid out how I think we should proceed.
17:10:56 [gkellogg]
Dominik_T: I sent an email about annotations and RDF-star, which we might discuss today.
17:11:41 [pchampin]
topic: github repositories and FPWD
17:11:46 [pchampin]
scribe+
17:12:07 [pchampin]
gkellogg: we need to create ~20 repositories
17:12:22 [pchampin]
... as pchampin pointed out, we can create them and rename them afterwards.
17:12:41 [pchampin]
... I have done some work to prepare the initial version of many of these documents,
17:12:50 [pchampin]
... but I don't intend to be an editor of most of them.
17:13:26 [pchampin]
... For documents that we do not intend to change substansively, we can just make a statement that the document has not changed, and not even change the editors
17:14:07 [gkellogg]
PROPOSAL: create repos for each of the the different specifications and assign editors later.
17:14:17 [gkellogg]
+1
17:14:21 [rubensworks]
+1
17:14:22 [gtw]
+1
17:14:22 [pchampin]
+1
17:14:23 [Souri]
+1
17:14:24 [AndyS]
+1
17:14:26 [Enrico]
+1
17:14:26 [Dominik_T]
+1
17:14:27 [ktk]
+1
17:14:29 [Doerthe]
+1
17:14:30 [AZ]
+1
17:14:30 [TallTed]
+1
17:14:30 [remiceres]
+1
17:14:32 [pchampin]
scribe-
17:14:52 [gkellogg]
RESOLVED: create repos for each of the the different specifications and assign editors later.
17:14:55 [AndyS]
q+
17:15:19 [pchampin]
action: pchampin to create the repositories for each spec
17:15:26 [ghurlbot]
Created -> action 10 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/10
17:15:31 [pchampin]
scribe+
17:15:54 [pchampin]
gkellogg: it is useful to set appropriate permissions for group members.
17:15:56 [gkellogg]
ktk: are there groups we can use on GitHub?
17:16:22 [gkellogg]
pchampin: We have two groups (teams). One for the participants, and another for the chairs.
17:16:31 [gkellogg]
... We can create ad-hoc teams for the editors.
17:16:48 [gkellogg]
... and we need to make a decision on the level of permissions we grant.
17:17:20 [gkellogg]
ktk: we can certainly give read permissions for participants.
17:18:26 [pchampin]
gkellogg: it is easy to break things unvoluntarily, so write access to the whole group is dangerous.
17:18:35 [gkellogg]
afs: Ora also said something about forming task-groups to keep the work of the main group focused.
17:18:41 [pchampin]
scribe-
17:18:44 [gkellogg]
s/afs/AndyS/
17:19:04 [gkellogg]
AndyS: Can we have agendas a day before the meeting?
17:19:28 [gkellogg]
... It would help if people knew what was coming up in the meeting, for people who's interest is more focused.
17:19:47 [gkellogg]
ktk: we discussed that in the chairs meeting.
17:20:07 [gkellogg]
AndyS: For the task groups, I think it's a good idea to find out how to make progress and then bring back summaries to the WG.
17:20:24 [gkellogg]
ktk: THat way we can keep important discussions in this group.
17:20:30 [gkellogg]
AndyS: Task groups aren't decision making.
17:21:18 [gkellogg]
ktk: Possible topic's from Ora and Enrico.
17:22:01 [gkellogg]
Enrico: My idea is in line with Peter's discussion and with what Ora discussed.
17:22:17 [gkellogg]
... We want a correct model-theoretic description of RDF-star.
17:22:54 [gkellogg]
... I argued that the way of using reified triples to represent model predication does not have a simple counter part in model theory.
17:23:10 [pchampin]
topic: RDF-star semantics
17:23:40 [gkellogg]
... In RDF-star where we introduce a "meta-triple", it's backwards compatible if it has a direct relationship with traditional RDF reification.
17:23:59 [gkellogg]
... We could keep backwards compatibility and provide best practices for using that to do modeling.
17:24:24 [gkellogg]
... Leaving out model predication means that an embedded triple always corresponds to something in the real world.
17:24:49 [gkellogg]
... So, a statement can have predicates.
17:25:21 [gkellogg]
... This implies that whenever an event exists, it can become an element of a graph and have its own properties.
17:25:33 [pchampin]
q+ to ask if '<< :pa a foaf:Person >>' qualifies as an "event"
17:25:34 [gkellogg]
... For non-model predication, this is always true.
17:26:00 [gkellogg]
... The triple can induce the creation of an event.
17:26:14 [gkellogg]
... Another implication is that reification is universal.
17:27:05 [gkellogg]
... Whoever has a triple can reify that to talk about it.
17:27:47 [AndyS]
ack AndyS
17:27:51 [gkellogg]
... an event doesn't necessarily need to be true (could be imagined).
17:28:12 [gkellogg]
... This gets down to how bnodes are interpreted within a graph.
17:28:41 [gkellogg]
... A bnode may or may not identify the same resource. If you have a ground graph, the reification should be the same for everybody.
17:28:53 [pchampin]
ack pchampin
17:28:53 [Zakim]
pchampin, you wanted to ask if '<< :pa a foaf:Person >>' qualifies as an "event"
17:28:59 [Doerthe]
q+
17:29:13 [gkellogg]
pchampin: I'm a bit worried about the notion of events; it could be a bit misleading.
17:29:25 [gkellogg]
... Not all triples represent events.
17:29:40 [TallTed]
q+
17:29:56 [gkellogg]
... Some of the examples used are a bit biased compared with all the triples that might be used.
17:30:05 [gkellogg]
... We should include triples that are less event-like.
17:30:22 [gkellogg]
Enrico: Yes, you're right, but those triples aren't really predications.
17:30:32 [gkellogg]
... The notion of a statement being true is the model aspect.
17:31:10 [TallTed]
q?
17:31:26 [gkellogg]
... If you know the domain of truth, an object or predication is a true statement.
17:31:58 [AndyS]
ack Doerthe
17:32:54 [gkellogg]
Doerthe: Do we really want to artificially create IRIs? It feels somewhat artificial that we have the notion of a quoted triple and then create an artificial URI.
17:33:26 [gkellogg]
... Also, I think your use of event-specific modeling might be too narrow.
17:33:40 [gkellogg]
... whether or not we want to use the event approach depends on where we go.
17:33:57 [gkellogg]
Enrico: A possibility is to create a new object that maps to a resource.
17:34:37 [gkellogg]
... I think that RDF-star has the property of defining a triple; a predicate on this is what makes it an event.
17:34:58 [gkellogg]
... If you want to do more than one statement, then why not use named graphs?
17:35:10 [gkellogg]
... Or N3, which talks about sets of triples or graphs.
17:35:44 [gkellogg]
... But here, because there's only one triple, there are notions of predication and reification.
17:35:59 [Dominik_T]
+q
17:36:10 [gkellogg]
... Perhaps we need to be in semantic agreement with named graphs and N3.
17:36:21 [gkellogg]
... We're confusing the reification and model predication.
17:36:47 [gkellogg]
Doerthe: I'm not convinced, but I'd like to hear other opinions.
17:36:50 [ktk]
ack TallTed
17:37:25 [gkellogg]
TallTed: I'm a bit frustrated, as I think Enrico is re-hashing discussion that happened in the CG and has been taken into consideration already.
17:37:56 [gkellogg]
... This is the third call where reification has been described as the motivation for this group, but there are others.
17:38:17 [gkellogg]
... We also need to be consistent in our terminology. Let's not talk about encoding "facts", they are assertions.
17:38:36 [gkellogg]
... Part of what we want to do is to be able to speak about assertions that are made without asserting it ourselves.
17:39:16 [gkellogg]
... Named graphs are useful things, but they are not fully incorporated into RDF at this point.
17:39:50 [gkellogg]
... TriG is written with a context which is described as a graph name, but could be interpreted in different ways.
17:40:01 [gkellogg]
... We can't step on other interpretations.
17:40:20 [gkellogg]
... Named graphs are important, as they can contradict each other.
17:40:39 [gkellogg]
... I wish RDF-star could support quoted graphs, but that may not be a group opinion.
17:40:51 [gkellogg]
... This is more than reification, and isn't about facts or even triples.
17:40:58 [gkellogg]
q?
17:41:02 [Enrico]
q+
17:41:19 [ktk]
ack Dominik_T
17:41:32 [gkellogg]
Dominik_T: I agree with Ted, but we are talking about annotation of a single RDF triple, not many.
17:41:41 [gkellogg]
... Talking about N3 is out of scope.
17:41:55 [ktk]
ack Enrico
17:42:08 [Doerthe]
q+
17:42:24 [gkellogg]
Enrico: I note that the CG document was just syntax. It doesn't get into the semantics.
17:42:48 [gkellogg]
... If you want a model theory, we need to discuss this.
17:42:51 [pchampin]
q+ to disagree that RDF-star is semantic-less
17:43:19 [gkellogg]
... There may be a notion of a graph being true, which is not the same as the existence of a resource.
17:43:40 [gkellogg]
... My role is to remind the group that there is a model theory.
17:43:51 [gkellogg]
... A number of RDF extensions have not taken this into account.
17:44:02 [gkellogg]
... For example OWL entailment.
17:44:28 [pchampin]
s/OWL entailment/SPARQL OWL entailment regime/
17:44:46 [gkellogg]
... RDF is different than other languages.
17:45:28 [gkellogg]
... The current CG spec is pure syntax. If you want to ground it in model theory, that's an issue.
17:45:47 [gkellogg]
... Let's start with doing this for one triple, and then we can discuss multiple.
17:45:49 [AndyS]
https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-entailment-20130321/#OWLRDFBSEntRegime
17:46:30 [gkellogg]
Doerthe: At the beginning we started with model theory before syntax.
17:46:37 [pchampin]
ack pchampin
17:46:37 [Zakim]
pchampin, you wanted to disagree that RDF-star is semantic-less
17:46:44 [ktk]
ack Doerthe
17:47:11 [gkellogg]
pchampin: We tried to make a proper model theory for RDF-star but couldn't reach concensus.
17:47:43 [gkellogg]
... The results might be baroque from a model-theoretic view, but it does have a notion of satisfiability and entailment.
17:48:02 [gkellogg]
... I'd rather have a standard model-theoretic interpretation, but we do have a semantics.
17:48:07 [Enrico]
q+
17:48:19 [gkellogg]
... It's in the CG report (section 7?)
17:48:21 [pchampin]
https://www.w3.org/2021/12/rdf-star.html#rdf-star-semantics
17:48:45 [gkellogg]
... I think Enrico is aware of the section, but we draw different conclusions.
17:48:55 [gkellogg]
... I say that it is a way of defining the semantics.
17:49:19 [gkellogg]
Enrico: The fact that I have a resource which is an object in the domain ...
17:49:35 [gkellogg]
... However, the object represents the truth value of a triple.
17:49:52 [TallTed]
a "fact" is ALWAYS true, by definition!
17:50:12 [gkellogg]
... There is object in the world which represents the truth value.
17:50:41 [TallTed]
a blank node is a node which is identified only by its attributes, without the node itself being specifically identified/named
17:50:52 [gkellogg]
... There triples become resources in the domain.
17:51:06 [TallTed]
it has nothing to with the "truth" of the asserted attribute values
17:51:11 [gkellogg]
... (scribe getting lost, sorry)
17:51:42 [gkellogg]
... To say it lacks model theoretic semantics is because models are isomorphic to reality.
17:51:56 [gkellogg]
... If I have objects which do not belong to reality ...
17:52:16 [gkellogg]
pchampin: I can respond better on the mailing list. We don't agree on what the bnodes represent.
17:52:45 [gkellogg]
TallTed: A fact is always true, but definition. But, it might be only true in my opinion.
17:53:00 [gkellogg]
... When i quote its a triple its my assertion.
17:53:22 [pchampin]
scribe-
17:53:26 [gkellogg]
... Blank nodes represent things not directly identified, so it is possible that a blank node is satisfied by one, or more different resources.
17:54:10 [pchampin]
"fact" in KR languages (e.g. prolog) means something more like what TallTed calls "assertions", that might explain the discrepencies across speakers
17:54:14 [gkellogg]
ktk: Ora won't be available next week, as well.
17:54:26 [pchampin]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:54:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/12-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:54:50 [TallTed]
s/but definition/by definition/
17:54:53 [Souri]
exit
17:55:12 [Souri]
WHat is the command to quit from irc?
17:55:19 [TallTed]
s/quote its a triple/encode it as a triple,/
17:55:20 [gkellogg]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:55:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/12-rdf-star-minutes.html gkellogg
17:55:28 [gkellogg]
rrsagent, pointer
17:55:28 [RRSAgent]
See https://www.w3.org/2023/01/12-rdf-star-irc#T17-55-28
17:55:43 [gkellogg]
zakim, end meeting
17:55:43 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been rubensworks, AZ, gtw, pchampin, Timothe, gkellogg, Enrico, TallTed, ktk, remiceres, AndyS, Souri, Dominik_T, Doerthe
17:55:46 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:55:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/12-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim
17:55:52 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, gkellogg; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
17:55:53 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-star
17:56:00 [gkellogg]
rrsagent, bye
17:56:00 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2023/01/12-rdf-star-actions.rdf :
17:56:00 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: pchampin to create the repositories for each spec [1]
17:56:00 [RRSAgent]
recorded in https://www.w3.org/2023/01/12-rdf-star-irc#T17-15-19