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