16:58:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
16:58:50 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-rdf-star-irc
16:58:50 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:58:51 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
16:59:31 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star
16:59:39 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:59:51 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #rdf-star
17:00:10 <gtw> present+
17:00:11 <pchampin> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/01/19-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:00:14 <ktk> present+
17:00:23 <gkellogg> present+
17:00:34 <pchampin> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/02/02-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:00:34 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
17:00:34 <pchampin> present+
17:02:13 <ora> present+
17:03:07 <rubensworks> present+
17:03:07 <TallTed> present+
17:03:33 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
17:03:43 <Souri> present+
17:03:47 <enrico> present?
17:04:15 <AndyS> zakim, who is here?
17:04:15 <Zakim> Present: pfps, enrico, AndyS, gtw, ktk, gkellogg, pchampin, ora, rubensworks, TallTed, Souri
17:04:16 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-star
17:04:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see Souri, ora, TallTed, gkellogg, RRSAgent, enrico, rubensworks, Zakim, pfps, AndyS, Tpt, ghurlbot, agendabot, driib, Timothe, gtw, ktk, rhiaro, csarven, pchampin
17:04:30 <AZ> present+
17:04:55 <pchampin> chair: ora
17:05:10 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF-star WG 2023-01-26 — https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Jan/0072.html
17:05:15 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
17:05:16 <pchampin> scribe+
17:05:25 <Dominik_T> present+
17:05:37 <pchampin> topic: previous call's minutes
17:05:54 <Doerthe> Doerthe has joined #rdf-star
17:06:02 <Doerthe> present+
17:06:08 <pchampin>  https://www.w3.org/2023/01/19-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:06:29 <pchampin> ora: any objection to approving the minutes?
17:06:48 <pchampin> ... I did send regrets, and they are not reflected
17:08:06 <pchampin> action: pchampin to add ora's and greg's regret and chair name in last calls minutes
17:08:15 <ghurlbot> Created -> action 12 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/12
17:08:27 <TallTed> `regrets+ username`
17:08:55 <ktk> TallTed: tnx
17:09:27 <pchampin> RESOLVED: minutes approved, modulo the changes to be made by pchampin
17:10:08 <pchampin> topic: agenda
17:10:32 <TallTed> for future, `3. Agenda` should be changed to `3. Review Agenda` which will not confuse the bots
17:10:39 <ora> q+
17:11:04 <pchampin> ktk: following last weeks discussions, we should collect use-cases more systematically
17:11:16 <pchampin> s/topic: agenda/topic: review agenda/
17:11:26 <ora> ack ora
17:11:34 <pchampin> ... I haven't progressed on my action to find reviewers
17:11:49 <pchampin> ora: we did collect use-cases in the CG, my group sent some
17:11:53 <ktk> queue+
17:11:53 <pchampin> ... can we recycle these?
17:12:05 <ora> ack ktk
17:12:09 <pchampin> ack ktk
17:12:26 <pchampin> ktk: I have seen use-cases in other specs, is there a standard way of doing that?
17:12:27 <gkellogg> q+
17:12:28 <pfps> use cases from the CG would be a good start, but they should be some way to mark some as not relevant
17:12:31 <pfps> q+
17:12:34 <AndyS> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/UCR/rdf-star-ucr.html
17:12:39 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:12:48 <pchampin> gkellogg: respec has some support for documenting use-cases
17:13:03 <pchampin> ... there are typically UCR (Use Cases and Requirements) documents in other groups
17:13:20 <pchampin> ... do we want to publish such a document, or simply collect UCs in github?
17:13:30 <ora> ack pfps
17:13:35 <pchampin> ... If we go for a document, we need more editors. We might want to go the simple way.
17:13:55 <pfps> sorry something appears to be wrong with my audio
17:13:58 <pfps> q-
17:14:04 <ora> q+
17:14:12 <ora> ack ora
17:14:30 <pfps> i see no need to publish a document as long as they are in something like a wiki
17:14:34 <pchampin> ora: we have collected use cases for our 1-graph project
17:14:48 <pchampin> ... with a lightweight process
17:15:14 <pchampin> ... I propose we use the github wiki to collect them,
17:15:15 <pfps> let's have only one way to create use cases
17:15:39 <pchampin> ... also accepting them on the mailing list, with a volunteer to copy them to the wiki
17:15:40 <pfps> there should be at least a little pain to submit something
17:15:48 <pchampin> ktk: I can do this
17:15:49 <AndyS> +1 to one page until too big
17:15:59 <pfps> it would be a good idea to have a template for use cases
17:16:00 <TallTed> q+
17:16:00 <AZ> +1 to one page
17:16:03 <pchampin> ... one wiki page per UC, or all in one page?
17:16:08 <enrico> q+
17:16:11 <pchampin> gkellogg: I suggest all in one page
17:16:21 <pchampin> ... creating a new page can be challending
17:16:38 <pchampin> TallTed: downside of github wiki: no way to get notified of changes
17:16:45 <pchampin> ... this makes it challenging to keep up with
17:17:02 <pchampin> ktk: it is versionned as normal git files
17:17:11 <pchampin> ora: alternative is to use issues
17:17:51 <pchampin> ... I suggest to start with a single wiki page, and escalate to more structured if necessary
17:17:59 <pfps> https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/78567/how-to-receive-a-notification-when-someone-edits-my-projects-github-wiki
17:18:34 <pchampin> ... Since we already collected UCs in the CG, I propose we focus on difficult client cases.
17:18:49 <pchampin> q?
17:18:59 <pchampin> ack enrico
17:19:07 <TallTed> q-
17:19:25 <gkellogg> q+
17:19:31 <pchampin> enrico: I suggest to label these use-cases as 'semantic' or 'syntactic', because they are very different kinds of UC
17:19:36 <pfps> a use-case template could have a place for categorization
17:19:42 <pchampin> q+
17:19:50 <ora> q?
17:20:03 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:20:05 <pchampin> ora: I like the idea of labelling
17:20:27 <pchampin> gkellogg: fuzzy border between use-cases and best practices
17:20:47 <ora> q+
17:20:50 <pchampin> ... the "what's new in RDF 1.2" could be a good place to put some "best practices"
17:21:03 <ora> ack pchampin
17:22:54 <ora> ack ora
17:23:15 <pchampin> pchampin: just to be clear: the "occurrenceOf" example in the spec is just that, an example
17:23:20 <pchampin> ... other examples provided in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2022Dec/0013.html
17:24:03 <enrico> q+
17:24:07 <pchampin> ora: also good to "advertise" what the new RDF allows to do
17:24:11 <ora> ack enrico
17:24:55 <pchampin> enrico: maybe useful to start the 'semantic'/'syntactic' distinction from my email
17:25:11 <ora> q+
17:25:12 <pchampin> ... most examples I see in the discussion are syntactic, e.g. about the triple itself
17:25:18 <pchampin> ... e.g. date of insertion
17:25:38 <pchampin> ... semantic use-cases are about the meaning of the triple
17:25:57 <pchampin> ... e.g. X marriedTo Y since a given date
17:26:10 <pchampin> ... In the semantic case, the triple should also hold as a fact in the graph.
17:26:30 <pchampin> ... Not necessarily in the syntactic case.
17:26:59 <pchampin> ... They also behave in different ways.
17:27:13 <pchampin> q+
17:27:36 <pchampin> ... The syntactic UCs, triples using synonym terms are still different triples.
17:27:57 <pchampin> ... This is what is in the CG report.
17:28:21 <ora> ack ora
17:28:30 <pchampin> ... This is different for semantic UCs.
17:28:45 <AndyS> q+
17:28:55 <pchampin> ora: is this different from the quoted vs asserted distinction we have in the CG report?
17:29:37 <AndyS> q+ to ask how we capture this as part of a UC in a wiki.
17:29:42 <pchampin> enrico: still, the spec says that quoted triples with synonym terms are always different
17:30:08 <TallTed> these are the same words and points that have been uttered in the past 3 calls. again.
17:30:15 <Doerthe> q+
17:30:32 <TallTed> q+
17:30:35 <ora> ack pchampin
17:31:11 <pchampin> ... It would be really strange to have << X :married Y >> :since DATE, and not to have << X :married Y >> .
17:31:14 <TallTed> has the final report of the CG been read and digested?
17:32:09 <ora> q?
17:32:37 <ora> ack AndyS
17:32:37 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask how we capture this as part of a UC in a wiki.
17:33:11 <pchampin> pchampin: stating << X :married Y >> :until DATE is a case where the triple should not be asserted
17:33:16 <ora> q?
17:33:23 <ora> ack Doerthe
17:33:51 <pchampin> ... Transparency Enabling Propeties are a proposed solution to bridge the gap between opaque quoted triples and semantic use cases
17:34:10 <enrico> q+
17:34:27 <pchampin> Doerthe: we had huge discussions on the CG mailing list about referential opacity
17:34:34 <ora> ack TallTed
17:34:44 <pfps> I'm interested in seeing an approach that can cover the semantic case from a start of the syntactic case
17:35:42 <pchampin> ... in the end, the rationale was that opacity does not prevent semantic UC
17:36:04 <pchampin> TallTed: we are repeating discussions that occurrent in the CG and are captured in the CG report
17:36:25 <pchampin> ... we have to start with the work we have already done
17:36:38 <pchampin> ... if we find holes, we can fix them
17:36:41 <ora> ack enrico
17:36:46 <ora> q+
17:36:54 <pchampin> ... based on use-cases
17:37:08 <pfps> I don't think that the WG has to just build on the CG.  However, WG members should have read and understood the CG documents.
17:37:35 <pchampin> enrico: I believe that the previous work misqualified some examples
17:38:08 <pchampin> ... the marriage I am talking about did happen, this fact remains true, even if the marriage ended
17:38:31 <ora> ack ora
17:38:32 <TallTed> q+ to mention the modeling piece I forgot to speak just now ... we cannot tell people that their previously valid model (hasSpouse) is now invalid and they must use a new model (marriedSpouse) because we've redesigned RDF to care more about events than static situations
17:38:41 <pchampin> ... the presence of opacity is indicating a probable modal problem
17:39:38 <pchampin> TallTed: telling people that RDF-star invalidates the way the modelled things in RDF is a non-starter
17:39:51 <pchampin> ora: I share TallTed's frustration
17:40:00 <pchampin> ... not the first time in the history of RDF
17:40:26 <ktk> q+
17:40:31 <pchampin> ... I see that the single wiki page approach to UCs may not work, if we need to discuss about controversial UCs
17:41:27 <pchampin> ... I concur that RDF-star should not invalidate existing RDF
17:41:38 <ora> q?
17:41:44 <TallTed> q-
17:41:48 <pchampin> ... We should identify the "untouchable" things?
17:41:50 <ora> ack ktk
17:42:15 <pchampin> ktk: I would then propose that we try creating issues for UCs
17:42:18 <gkellogg> q+ to suggest we create a GitHub issue template
17:42:20 <pchampin> ... with labels to categorize them
17:42:32 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:42:32 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to suggest we create a GitHub issue template
17:42:33 <Souri> Ted, Are you refrring to the use of rdfn:... in the RDFn example I sent earlier today? Please note that, if we do not require "statement about statement." RDFn does not need thosw placeholders at all. So, in that sense, it is fully backward compatible with RDF.
17:42:59 <pchampin> gkellogg: github allows to create issue templates
17:43:12 <pchampin> I think we were using templates for UC in the CG
17:43:30 <pchampin> ... respec can populate openissues in documents as well;
17:43:42 <pchampin> ... this could be a way to include those use-cases in a document
17:43:45 <TallTed> q+ to suggest we should include (or refer back to) RDF "classic" use cases in the list, so as to ensure that all of them remain viable within RDF-star implementations
17:44:00 <pchampin> ktk: have done it already, this is easy
17:44:19 <pchampin> ... we can discuss the structure on the mailing list
17:44:37 <pchampin> ... people will have to remember to use the template
17:45:31 <pchampin> AndyS: the template can be retrofitted in existing issues
17:46:25 <pchampin> TallTed: it might be worth looking at "RDF classic" use-cases, to be sure we don't break them
17:46:29 <ktk> As an <actor>       … WHO
17:46:29 <ktk> I want a <feature>  … WHAT
17:46:29 <ktk> So that <benefit>   … WHY
17:46:43 <pchampin> ... this might be just reusing the test suite
17:46:58 <pchampin> ktk: above is the UC template used by the CG; are we ok to start with this?
17:47:04 <pchampin> ora: it is a good starting point
17:47:17 <pchampin> s/topic: review agenda/topic: use-cases/
17:47:37 <pchampin> topic: upcdate on the state of the specifications
17:47:55 <AndyS> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-new/
17:47:55 <pchampin> AndyS: I put the sparql documents in the repository
17:48:10 <pchampin> ... gkellogg did a lot of work on the RDF ones
17:48:20 <pchampin> ... put a list of all specs in rdf-new (link above)
17:48:38 <pchampin> ... Now the documents need to be checked.
17:49:15 <pchampin> gkellogg: much more work on the SPARQL ones, because they were not based on Respec in the first place
17:49:36 <pchampin> ... but they are soon editable so that we can make contributions
17:49:57 <pchampin> ... I didn't want to edit documents until will sort out editors' responsibility
17:50:26 <pchampin> ora: we will seek editors,
17:50:38 <pchampin> ... then maybe gkellogg can give a quick introduction to editing
17:50:52 <pchampin> gkellogg: a couple of us are having an informal call tomorrow
17:51:03 <pchampin> ... no need to waste WG time for "mechanical" details
17:51:16 <pchampin> ... I can describe my own practice
17:51:57 <pchampin> ... Re Test Suite, they are currently currated by a dedicated CG
17:52:15 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/community/rdf-tests/
17:52:23 <pchampin> ... do we want to move them into this WG?
17:52:25 <pchampin> q+
17:52:40 <TallTed> q-
17:52:44 <ora> ack tallTed
17:52:45 <pchampin> topic: AOB
17:52:49 <ktk> q+
17:52:52 <pfps> presumaby a place for people to volunteer to be editors will be up soon
17:53:03 <ora> ack pchampin
17:53:22 <pchampin> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20
17:54:02 <gkellogg> q+
17:54:14 <pchampin> pchampin: I created the GH project and linked all our repos to it
17:54:20 <ora> ack ktk
17:54:27 <ktk> q+
17:54:42 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:54:44 <ora> ack ktk
17:54:49 <pchampin> gkellogg: it would be nice to have a list of repos, that we can filter issues on
17:54:59 <pchampin> ktk: the issue template is now created
17:55:35 <pchampin> ora: this is the end, see you next week
17:56:01 <ora> Thanks pchampin for scribing
17:56:04 <pchampin> ktk: won't be here next week, will be on a plane
17:56:13 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:56:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:56:32 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:57:10 <TallTed> s/upcdate/update/
17:57:28 <pchampin> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Jan/0072.html
17:57:28 <agendabot> clear agenda
17:57:28 <agendabot> agenda+ Agenda
17:57:28 <agendabot> agenda+ Collection of use cases
17:57:28 <agendabot> agenda+ Updates/status of the WIP specs
17:57:42 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:57:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:59:15 <TallTed> s/occurrent in the CG/occurred in the CG/
18:00:21 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:00:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
18:00:49 <pchampin> s/challending/challenging/
18:01:23 <TallTed> s/present?/present+/
18:01:39 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:01:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
18:03:05 <pchampin> s/not to have << X :married Y >>/not to have X :married Y asserted/
18:03:10 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:03:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
18:04:12 <TallTed> s/have X :married Y asserted/have { X :married Y } asserted/
18:05:15 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:05:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
18:06:06 <TallTed> s/have << X :married Y >> :since DATE/have { << X :married Y >> :since DATE }/
18:06:14 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:06:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
18:07:34 <TallTed> s/<< X :married Y >> :until DATE/{ << X :married Y >> :until DATE }/
18:08:00 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:08:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
18:14:03 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:19:27 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:20:33 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-star
18:26:55 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:29:23 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-star
18:33:36 <TallTed> Zakim, end meeting
18:33:36 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pfps, enrico, AndyS, gtw, ktk, gkellogg, pchampin, ora, rubensworks, TallTed, Souri, AZ, Dominik_T, Doerthe
18:33:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:33:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim
18:33:44 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, TallTed; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:33:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
18:34:08 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
18:34:08 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-rdf-star-actions.rdf :
18:34:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pchampin to add ora's and greg's regret and chair name in last calls minutes [1]
18:34:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-rdf-star-irc#T17-08-06