15:01:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:01:35 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/19-rdf-star-irc
15:01:35 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:01:36 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
15:01:46 <AndyS> present+
15:01:50 <pfps> present+
15:01:53 <tl> present+
15:02:04 <pchampin> present+
15:02:06 <TallTed> present+
15:02:09 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
15:02:20 <niklasl> present+
15:02:37 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star WG
15:02:41 <ora> present+
15:03:04 <niklasl> present+
15:04:10 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
15:04:13 <enrico> present+
15:04:40 <AndyS> chair: ora
15:05:16 <TallTed> Zakim, pick a victim
15:05:16 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose TallTed
15:05:45 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:05:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/19-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:06:01 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:06:29 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
15:06:34 <tl> scribe+
15:06:42 <Souri> present+
15:07:37 <tl> ora: like peters 4-point list from yesterday as a minimla base line
15:07:58 <tl> ... no change to abstarct syntax
15:08:05 <tl> ... no change t semantics
15:08:30 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-rdf-star-minutes.html#x077
15:08:33 <tl> ... @@3
15:08:39 <tl> ...@@4
15:09:07 <pchampin> s/@@3/several concrete syntaxes have new shorthands
15:09:15 <pchampin> s/@@4/a new notion of well-formed RDF
15:09:29 <pchampin> q+
15:09:39 <ora> ack pchampin
15:10:36 <tl> pchampin pushback on making reification the base line in discussion yesterday
15:11:42 <tl> ... so seemingly no consensus on the chairs proposal
15:11:45 <AndyS> q+
15:11:56 <ora> ack AndyS
15:13:27 <tl> andy address concerns about reification such as bloat and fragility
15:13:47 <AndyS> s/andy /andy: /
15:14:57 <tl> pfps not sure changing reification vocab helps
15:15:28 <tl> andy how are things recorded
15:16:22 <pfps> s/pfps/pfps:/
15:17:33 <enrico> q+
15:17:51 <tl> ora: optimization - what happens if someone uses the reification vocab instead of a shorthand syntax
15:18:01 <ora> ack enrico
15:18:34 <tl> enrico: leaf out rdf:Statement in expansion and the actual stated statement
15:18:50 <pchampin> q+
15:18:55 <ora> ack pchampin
15:18:58 <AndyS> :e :isNameOf << :s :p :o >> .
15:19:04 <Souri> s/leaf out/leave out/
15:19:29 <AndyS> (from the minutes yesterday)
15:19:42 <tl> pchampin: starting point of recent proposal was asserted statement
15:19:59 <tl> ... agree that rdf:statement can be omitted
15:20:22 <tl> ... is also not used in practice (just rdf:subject/predicate/object)
15:21:48 <tl> q+
15:22:21 <niklasl> rdf:subject rdfs:domain rdf:Statement . # as defined
15:22:26 <tl> tl: but we might find it useful to subclass it as "fact" and "claim"
15:22:50 <AndyS> q+
15:23:46 <ora> ack tl
15:23:54 <AndyS> scribe+
15:23:55 <tl> enrico: give suggestions for different classes of situation, like opacity
15:23:58 <pchampin> scribe+
15:24:12 <AndyS> tl: might subclass statement into claim and fact
15:24:16 <AndyS> scribe-
15:24:17 <pchampin> tl: we might find it useful to subclass rdf:Statement with things like Facts, Claims, maybe OpaqueStatement...
15:24:19 <ora> ack AndyS
15:25:24 <tl> ora: possible implementation challenge if naming a triple requires to change if the name is used already
15:25:53 <niklasl> q+
15:25:58 <tl> pchampin: same issue with reification vocab, so rather orthogonal
15:26:20 <tl> pfps: same problem when re-using IRIs
15:26:47 <tl> enrico: it's not enough to say "be careful". there should be more guidance
15:26:56 <AndyS> q+
15:26:57 <pchampin> scribe-
15:26:58 <pchampin> q+
15:27:03 <TallTed> q+
15:27:16 <tl> ora: what if two triples have the same name? still wellformed?
15:27:32 <ora> ack niklasl
15:28:12 <ora> q+
15:28:25 <enrico> q+
15:28:27 <ora> ack Andys
15:28:29 <tl> niklas: syntax helpfully gives a blank node name by default
15:28:38 <AndyS> --   :e :isNameOf << :s :p :o >> .
15:30:08 <ora> ack pchampin
15:31:01 <TallTed> for potential future... https://hackmd.io/ keeps the two panes in sync, and allows for collaborative edits (which might be good or bad) of the markdown
15:31:31 <tl> pchampin: notion of wellformedness still needed. should say no multiple triples with same name
15:31:52 <tl> ... "soft well-formedness"
15:32:01 <ora> ack TallTed
15:32:08 <tl> ... analog to constraints on the reification quad
15:32:52 <tl> tallted: there is already the restriction that an IRI refers to only one thing
15:33:05 <ora> q-
15:33:14 <tl> ... but that only applies to one snapshot of one graph
15:33:41 <tl> ... we might to define statement IDs like we define blank nodes, constrained to one graph
15:33:54 <ora> ack enrico
15:33:55 <niklasl> +1 for Ted's further clarification
15:33:59 <tl> s/might to d/might d
15:35:08 <tl> enrico: an IRI always refers to just one thing, so an IRI would always refer to only ONE resource, no matter how many occurrences are named by that IRI
15:35:30 <tl> ... so wouldn't want to have such a restriction
15:35:31 <niklasl> q+
15:36:12 <tl> ... the name doesn't name the triple but an occurrence (whatever that means exactly)
15:36:43 <tl> ... necessarily a many-to-many relation between triples and ???
15:37:12 <tl> s/???/occurrences of triples
15:37:19 <ora> ack niklasl
15:38:21 <tl> niklas: when using inference there may be many triples refering to the same occurrence
15:38:28 <pchampin> q+ to ask how an "occurrences of A triple" is in a many-to-MANY relationship with "triples"...
15:38:44 <enrico> q+
15:38:50 <tl> ... so should the name refer to the triple itself or the statement?
15:38:58 <AndyS> q+
15:39:09 <tl> ... i understand it as refering to the statement
15:39:35 <ora> ack enrico
15:40:14 <pchampin> +1 to build an assembly language
15:40:22 <Souri> q+
15:40:37 <tl> enrico: this construct could be used to define many kinds of reified triples
15:40:46 <niklasl> From RDF concepts: An RDF triple encodes a statement—a simple logical expression, or claim about the world.
15:41:03 <niklasl> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#entailment
15:41:11 <tl> ... should not be constrained more than w.r.t. well-formedness, adn soem best practice
15:41:14 <ora> ack pchampin
15:41:14 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to ask how an "occurrences of A triple" is in a many-to-MANY relationship with "triples"...
15:41:31 <tl> s/adn soem/and some
15:42:13 <tl> pchampin: occurrence is a many-to-one triple relation
15:42:51 <ora> ack AndyS
15:43:03 <tl> .... rdf 1.1 doesn't have the notion of an un-asserted triple
15:43:29 <tl> andys: we need an issues list
15:43:30 <ora> ack Souri
15:44:45 <pfps> q+
15:45:03 <tl> souri: if the name of an occurrence may refer to many triples, then it represents a changing collection
15:45:21 <niklasl> <st> a rdf:Statement ; rdf:subject <s1> ; rdf:predicate <p> ; rdf:object <o> . <s1> owl:sameAs <s2> .
15:45:29 <tl> ... and we can say things about that (possibly cxhanging) collection, right?
15:45:31 <ora> ack pfps
15:46:05 <niklasl> q+
15:46:07 <tl> pfps: the current proposal doesn't allow a name to refer to multiple triple occurrences
15:46:23 <tl> ... right now the name *is* the triple occurrence
15:46:24 <ora> ack niklasl
15:46:36 <tl> ... going that way is a major change to the proposal
15:47:06 <pfps> q+
15:47:13 <ora> ack pfps
15:47:53 <tl> pfps: on the meaning side there's allows only one thing. well-formedness is about syntax
15:47:56 <tl> q+
15:47:59 <pchampin> q+
15:48:17 <ora> ack tl
15:48:23 <enrico> q+
15:48:24 <pchampin> scribe+
15:48:35 <pchampin> tl: you are going into referential opacity
15:49:06 <niklasl> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/#reification # See _:xxx  and _:yyy in the example.
15:49:11 <pchampin> pfps: well-formed-ness is a syntatic notion, semantics has nothing to do with it
15:50:13 <pchampin> tl: several triples can have the same meaning
15:50:48 <Souri> q+
15:51:00 <pchampin> pfps: triples are syntactic constructs; they occur in graphs; a graph is well-formed if some conditions on its triples are satisfied
15:51:03 <niklasl> "Rather, the reification describes the relationship between a token of a triple and the resources that the triple refers to."
15:51:30 <ora> ack pchampin
15:51:48 <pchampin> scribe-
15:52:33 <tl> pchampin: yesterdays discussion maybe let beyond teh current proposal
15:52:46 <tl> ... atomicity is important for some members of teh group
15:52:57 <pfps> There is no need for internal documents to be syntactically well-formed, nor is there any need for internal RDF graph data structures to be well formed.
15:53:03 <tl> ... the standard reification can not be the solution
15:53:06 <tl> q+
15:53:33 <tl> ... peter still seems to see it on the table
15:53:42 <ora> ack enrico
15:53:43 <enrico> << :w1 | :bill-clinton :related-to :hillary-rodham >> :starts 1975 . << :w1 | :42nd-potus :husband :1st-female-NY-senator >> :starts 1975 .
15:53:50 <pfps> ... in this sense - a system can enforce lots of well-formedness restrictions on its internal data structures.
15:54:17 <tl> enrico: this atomicity/well-formedness dogma i can not agree with
15:54:35 <tl> ... it is giving a meaning to that construct
15:54:40 <pchampin> q+ to respond to enrico
15:54:46 <AndyS> See are we agreed about atomicity?
15:54:52 <tl> ... which, as peter just that, is not possible
15:54:57 <ora> ack pchampin
15:54:57 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to respond to enrico
15:55:19 <tl> pchampin: i said contradictory things
15:55:57 <tl> ... the intended use of teh abstarct syntax seems to be many-to-one, occurrences of *a* triple
15:56:47 <pfps> In the current proposal
15:56:47 <pfps> << :w1 | :bill-clinton :related-to :hillary-rodham >> :starts 1975 .
15:56:47 <pfps> << :w1 | :42nd-potus :husband :1st-female-NY-senator >> :starts 1975 .
15:56:47 <pfps> expands to
15:56:47 <enrico> q+
15:56:50 <pfps> :w1 rdf:predicate :related-to .
15:56:53 <tl> ... okay for many-to-many in teh abstarct syntax, however the intention seems to be many-to-one
15:56:53 <pfps> :w1 rdf:predicate :husband .
15:56:57 <pfps> ...
15:57:00 <pfps> which doesn't make sense.
15:57:05 <tl> ... of course we don't enforce this
15:57:16 <ora> ack Souri
15:57:20 <enrico> q-
15:57:59 <AndyS> q+ to ask about atomicity
15:58:05 <tl> souri: assembly language is good, but we need a high level syntax
15:58:39 <tl> ... atomicity in terms of wellformedness is a good thing to have
15:59:04 <tl> ... the reification quad can have dangling links
16:00:26 <enrico> q+
16:00:44 <tl> ... having an IRI name two triples should not lead t an owl:sameAs entauilment
16:00:58 <ora> ack tl
16:01:01 <pchampin> I see well-formed-ness as something much "weaker" than closed world assumption, but agreed, they have some similarity
16:01:03 <pchampin> scribe+
16:01:34 <pchampin> tl: yesterday, we didn't agree on being able to exchange the model
16:01:48 <pchampin> ... it can be implemented in different ways
16:01:52 <pfps> q+
16:02:27 <TallTed> The biggest reason OWL (and inference/reasoning in general) is unpopular is the early misunderstanding of what owl:sameAs meant, which led to much dirty data which incorrectly used owl:sameAs forcing users to ignore/discard OWL-based statements.
16:02:29 <pchampin> ... some people don't want to implement triple terms
16:02:48 <pchampin> ... we can perfectly not exchange the model, only syntax
16:02:49 <ora> ack AndyS
16:02:49 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about atomicity
16:03:03 <pfps> q-
16:03:25 <pchampin> scribe-
16:05:21 <ora> ack enrico
16:05:24 <enrico> does   <<:a | :s :o :p>> :s1 :o1 .   <<:b | :s :o :p>> :s1 :o1 .
16:05:31 <enrico> entail   :a :same-as :b .   ??
16:05:37 <tl> andy: we might get into problems with querying if we don't require a new term in the model , e.g. when counting
16:06:13 <AndyS> s/require a  new term/define a mapping to the abstract syntax/
16:06:28 <pfps> You answer this by expanding and using current entailment, not only no, but **no**!
16:06:32 <AndyS> s/require a new term/define a mapping to the abstract syntax/
16:06:36 <Souri> q+
16:06:59 <ora> ack Souri
16:07:16 <tl> enrico: we should not have strong well-formedness requirements, only prevent dangling links
16:07:27 <enrico> +1
16:07:48 <pchampin> q+ to note that I like the comparison to dangling links
16:08:24 <tl> souri: we should have both assembly level with all the possible powers, and a higher level language that prevents dangling links
16:08:46 <ora> ack pchampin
16:08:46 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to note that I like the comparison to dangling links
16:09:01 <tl> ... we need a language construct that makes users feel confident they can't make silly mistakes
16:09:07 <pchampin> :s :p
16:09:15 <pchampin> :s :p "o"^^
16:09:38 <pchampin> :e rdf:subject :s.
16:09:57 <tl> pchampin: the current abstarct syntaxes already prevents against certain things like eg incomplete triples.
16:10:13 <tl> ... we could do soemthing like that for reification
16:10:30 <tl> s/soemthing/something
16:10:40 <pchampin> :a :b << :e | :s :p
16:10:51 <TallTed> s/abstarct syntaxes/abstract syntax/
16:11:03 <tl> ... ^ that we don't want
16:11:17 <TallTed> s/like eg/like/
16:11:41 <ora> q?
16:11:45 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:11:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/19-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:12:46 <pchampin> STRAWPOLL: do we think that the atomicty of "edges" is important enough that we can extend the abstract syntax to guarantee it?
16:12:53 <Souri> +1 to colloquial use of "edge" :-)
16:12:56 <AndyS> +1
16:13:01 <pchampin> +0.66
16:13:03 <tl> +1
16:13:06 <Souri> +1
16:13:14 <pfps> -1
16:13:19 <ora> +0
16:13:19 <niklasl> +0
16:13:24 <TallTed> +0
16:13:36 <pfps> -1 for the purposes of the discussion today
16:13:41 <AndyS> q+
16:13:48 <ora> ack AndyS
16:14:07 <enrico> -1
16:14:29 <tl> andys: if one doesn't want atomicity of edges, how can one agree with annotation syntax
16:15:13 <tl> pchampin: not more than the use of lists
16:15:45 <niklasl> ... or the RDF/XML shorthand for reified and asserted (using rdf:ID on a predicate)
16:15:52 <pchampin> s/how can one agree with annotation syntax/anything we do with the annotation syntax is suspect
16:16:08 <pchampin> q+
16:16:13 <tl> peter: will put the document (that everybody sees right now) somewhere public
16:16:22 <ora> ack pchampin
16:16:25 <AndyS> q+
16:16:37 <tl> ora: ask everybody to review that document
16:16:38 <pfps> q+
16:17:33 <enrico> Why don't we have: STRAWPOLL: do we think that the atomicty of "edges" is important enough that we need to have a best practices section to explain it??
16:17:38 <ora> ack AndyS
16:17:40 <tl> pchampin: w.r.t. to lack of consensus on strawpoll, does +1 mean "I can't live without this modification to the abstract syntax"?
16:18:10 <tl> andys: no. wg has to address the known deficiencies of reification
16:18:14 <ora> ack pfps
16:18:27 <pchampin> q+ tl
16:18:36 <tl> souri: same. we need that to get uptake
16:19:19 <pchampin> q+
16:19:56 <tl> pfps: unclear what the current proposal is
16:19:58 <AndyS> From the minutes of 2024-01-18  --    :e rdf:nameOf << :s :p :o >> .
16:20:38 <tl> ... maybe somebody can write down was the agreement of yesterday was
16:20:54 <tl> ora: right now we can't know what the consensus is
16:21:18 <AndyS> q?
16:21:23 <AndyS> q+
16:21:24 <Souri> q+
16:21:29 <ora> ack tl
16:21:30 <tl> pfps: too much confusion. we need better worked out proposals
16:21:35 <pchampin> scribe+
16:22:03 <pchampin> tl: to answer pchampin's question: my +1 does not mean "we need to change the abstract syntax"
16:22:22 <ora> ack pchampin
16:22:32 <pchampin> ... I see Souri and AndyS's point about atomicity, but I believe the syntax provides the adequate guarantees
16:24:23 <tl> pchampin: notion of well-formedness is meant to provide the necessary guarantees if we don't add something to the abstract syntax
16:24:40 <ora> q+
16:24:46 <tl> ... would not be as strong as changing the abstract syntax but might be sufficient
16:24:57 <tl> ... would like to investigate that route some more
16:25:09 <ora> ack AndyS
16:25:30 <tl> ... the importance of atomicity has been pointed out, now how can we get it without changing the abstract syntax
16:26:09 <pfps> q+
16:26:11 <ora> ack Souri
16:26:22 <tl> andys: there have been proposals, but not much engagement, but instead alternative proposals that don't build on prevuious work
16:26:37 <pfps> q+ to say that the proposals have been from individuals, not subgroups of the WG
16:26:54 <tl> souri: reification has been there forever. can we add to that an atomic concept?
16:27:50 <tl> ... wellformed reification quad as a singleton. if we count, then we count those singletons, not reification quads
16:28:10 <ora> ack pfps
16:28:11 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to say that the proposals have been from individuals, not subgroups of the WG
16:28:13 <tl> ... otherwise user would have to query for (reification) triples
16:28:47 <ora> ack ora
16:28:51 <AndyS> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Dec/0033.html + reification-based semantics
16:29:44 <tl> ora: peter please make your document available
16:30:25 <tl> ... then the chairs will make known that this is what most people can agree on right now
16:31:11 <Souri> regrets for next week's short meeting -- I'll be on vacation
16:31:30 <tl> ... title of peters doc: "a draft proposal for satisfying the main requirements of the working group"
16:31:35 <niklasl> Thought of an #RDFPRAGMA: <ex:t> := << <ex:s> <ex:p> <ex:o> >> to declare intent of well-formedness in N-triples (ideally but not necessarily directly followed by a contiguous set of that in actual triples). Very weak stuff of couse.
16:31:50 <tl> ... high hopes that we can agree on this
16:32:13 <pchampin> scribe+
16:32:27 <tl> ... important that everybody reviews it
16:32:30 <pchampin> AndyS: I want it recorded in the minutes that I believe we must address th known limits of reifications
16:32:37 <pchampin> scrice-
16:32:38 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:32:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/19-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:32:53 <AndyS> s/limits/issues/
16:33:03 <TallTed> s/scrice/scribe/
16:33:11 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:33:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/19-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:34:40 <pchampin> i/ora: like peters/topic: Seeking consensus (cont.)
16:34:44 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:34:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/19-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
16:36:14 <pchampin> Zakim, bye
16:36:14 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been AndyS, pfps, tl, pchampin, TallTed, niklasl, ora, enrico, Souri
16:36:14 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
16:36:16 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:36:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/19-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:36:44 <pchampin> RRSAgent, bye
16:36:44 <RRSAgent> I see no action items