IRC log of rdf-star on 2024-02-01
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:59:55 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
- 16:00:00 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/01-rdf-star-irc
- 16:00:00 [pfps]
- present+
- 16:00:00 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, make logs Public
- 16:00:01 [Zakim]
- please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
- 16:00:39 [pchampin]
- pchampin has changed the topic to: RDF-star — Semantics TF meeting — 2024-02-01 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/5ecc5c5f-5cd2-410c-b97c-6b13c6b843f1/20240201T110000/#agenda
- 16:01:25 [tl]
- tl has joined #rdf-star
- 16:01:25 [olaf]
- present+
- 16:01:28 [AndyS]
- Summary link -- https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/seeking-consensus-2024-01.html
- 16:01:32 [AndyS]
- present+
- 16:01:32 [fsasaki]
- present+
- 16:01:41 [TallTed]
- TallTed has joined #rdf-star
- 16:01:54 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 16:02:16 [ktk]
- present+
- 16:02:21 [pchampin]
- meeting: RDF-star WG biweekly long meeting
- 16:02:34 [pchampin]
- previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/01/25-rdf-star-minutes.html
- 16:02:38 [enrico]
- enrico has joined #rdf-star
- 16:02:40 [Dominik_T]
- Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
- 16:02:42 [enrico]
- present+
- 16:02:43 [pchampin]
- next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/02/08-rdf-star-minutes.html
- 16:02:45 [tl]
- present+
- 16:02:53 [draggett]
- draggett has joined #rdf-star
- 16:03:02 [gkellogg]
- present+
- 16:03:18 [draggett]
- present+
- 16:03:26 [niklasl]
- niklasl has joined #rdf-star
- 16:03:28 [Dominik_T]
- present+
- 16:03:31 [ora]
- ora has joined #rdf-star
- 16:03:33 [niklasl]
- present+
- 16:03:38 [Souri]
- Souri has joined #rdf-star
- 16:03:38 [ora]
- present+
- 16:03:42 [ktk]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:03:44 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/01-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
- 16:03:51 [Souri]
- present+
- 16:04:02 [ktk]
- Chair: Ora
- 16:04:11 [ktk]
- Scribe: draggett
- 16:04:58 [draggett]
- Ora welcomes back niklasl who has renewed invited expert status.
- 16:05:25 [pchampin]
- https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/seeking-consensus-2024-01.html
- 16:05:47 [draggett]
- Adrian invites pchampin to summarise where we are
- 16:05:52 [doerthe]
- doerthe has joined #rdf-star
- 16:06:01 [doerthe]
- present+
- 16:07:16 [draggett]
- pchampin: we should be able to straightforwardly adapt the RDF star semantics for all of the proposals
- 16:07:28 [pfps]
- pfps has left #rdf-star
- 16:07:53 [pfps]
- pfps has joined #rdf-star
- 16:07:59 [pfps]
- Topic: Discussion of updated "Seeking consensus" table https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/seeking-consensus-2024-01.html
- 16:08:05 [pfps]
- present+
- 16:08:08 [draggett]
- the most contentious point is the syntax
- 16:08:12 [ktk]
- q?
- 16:08:24 [pfps]
- q+
- 16:08:52 [draggett]
- pchampin: a simple point: there is a question mark re SPARQL in olaf's email
- 16:09:01 [olaf]
- q+
- 16:09:11 [gkellogg]
- q+
- 16:09:31 [draggett]
- The triple pattern s p o doesn't match edge statements ...
- 16:09:33 [Souri]
- q+
- 16:09:43 [ktk]
- ack pfps
- 16:09:51 [draggett]
- ack pfps
- 16:09:57 [pfps]
- I think that it is more accurate to say that the semantics is the same except the part for embedded triples.
- 16:10:09 [ktk]
- ack olaf
- 16:10:17 [draggett]
- pfps: the semantics are all the same except in relation to (?)
- 16:10:40 [draggett]
- ack olaf
- 16:11:08 [draggett]
- olaf: the last column in the table is less clear for me
- 16:11:24 [draggett]
- ack gkellogg
- 16:11:41 [TallTed]
- ... blah blah blah
- 16:11:55 [AndyS]
- q+
- 16:12:06 [TallTed]
- s/... blah blah blah//
- 16:12:38 [ora]
- q?
- 16:12:49 [draggett]
- gkellogg: talks about updating RDF/XML and pchampin's sugar+ note
- 16:13:13 [draggett]
- ack Souri
- 16:13:21 [ktk]
- ack Souri
- 16:13:59 [draggett]
- Souri: was on vacation last week, so now catching up, RDF triple should be counted separately from named occurrence of triple
- 16:14:42 [olaf]
- q+
- 16:15:11 [draggett]
- ... , keeping them independent, I like that idea, but the count should be zero
- 16:15:16 [draggett]
- ack AndyS
- 16:15:31 [ktk]
- ack AndyS
- 16:15:32 [pchampin]
- q+
- 16:15:38 [pchampin]
- q-
- 16:15:58 [AZ]
- AZ has joined #rdf-star
- 16:16:02 [AZ]
- present+
- 16:16:25 [TallTed]
- s/the most contentious/... the most contentious/
- 16:17:09 [draggett]
- AndyS: 2 points, 1) RDF/XML has its own well-formedness condition (gives details), 2) about count, it's worth noting that in Olaf's example, there is a real triple, so the numbers in the column might be one more than you think. I would like to know how you go between edges and triples
- 16:17:15 [draggett]
- ack olaf
- 16:18:07 [pchampin]
- q+
- 16:18:10 [draggett]
- olaf: responding to Souri, I concur with AndyS. (provides explanation)
- 16:18:16 [Souri]
- q+
- 16:18:51 [draggett]
- ... . Souri should be able to respond to AndyS's 2nd point
- 16:19:00 [draggett]
- ack pchampin
- 16:20:14 [draggett]
- Souri: if the data was an annotation, the count of s p o should be 1. For a named occurrence of a triple, in that case SPARQL should see a count of zero
- 16:20:35 [draggett]
- ... . for a regular triple, count should be 1
- 16:21:24 [draggett]
- ... , SPARQL should find the references rather than the triples themselves
- 16:21:32 [tl]
- q+
- 16:21:32 [ktk]
- q?
- 16:21:34 [ktk]
- ack Souri
- 16:21:43 [draggett]
- ack tl
- 16:22:15 [draggett]
- tl: we're conflating asserted/unasserted triples.
- 16:22:20 [ktk]
- q?
- 16:22:25 [olaf]
- q+
- 16:22:33 [ora]
- ack olaf
- 16:23:15 [draggett]
- olaf: it depends on which case we are talking about, for the 3rd case, first row, expansion to named triple
- 16:23:52 [draggett]
- ... , on the next row, the reference is to a different position, and you see two triples
- 16:24:12 [Souri]
- q+
- 16:24:15 [draggett]
- ... . For the last column it isn't so clear
- 16:24:20 [ora]
- ack Souri
- 16:24:23 [pchampin]
- the variables in the SPARQL query should probably have different names, like ?x ?y ?z, to differentiate them from :s :p and :o in the example :-/
- 16:25:15 [AndyS]
- q+
- 16:25:42 [pchampin]
- q+
- 16:26:24 [draggett]
- Souri: if the subject in the query is a named triple, the count should be 1. There is one triple if we don't constrain the variable.
- 16:27:47 [draggett]
- ... RDF today doesn't have the asserted/unasserted distinction. S P O gets asserted, but when you use a name, it isn't asserted.
- 16:28:22 [ora]
- ack AndyS
- 16:28:25 [draggett]
- ... we can avoid introducing the asserted/unasserted distinction.
- 16:28:27 [AndyS]
- One triple is << :e | :s :p :o >> rdf:nameOf :e and the second triple is :e :pp :oo . -- :s :p :o is not asserted.
- 16:29:22 [draggett]
- AndyS: I think you're misreading the example. (explains).
- 16:29:22 [ora]
- ack pchampin
- 16:29:37 [ora]
- q+
- 16:29:52 [AndyS]
- One triple is rdf:nameOf :e << :e | :s :p :o >> and the second triple is :e :pp :oo . -- :s :p :o is not asserted.
- 16:29:57 [draggett]
- pchampin: what is probably confusing is that the query is not being run on the stuff in the previous row
- 16:30:10 [AndyS]
- One triple is :e rdf:nameOf << :e | :s :p :o >> and the second triple is :e :pp :oo . -- :s :p :o is not asserted.
- 16:30:15 [TallTed]
- q+
- 16:30:28 [olaf]
- First triple is :e rdf:nameOf <<( :s :p :o )>>
- 16:30:37 [TallTed]
- q+ to ask for changes to the table, that may bring more clarity
- 16:30:44 [AndyS]
- (sorry about the mistypes - only the third example is meant)
- 16:31:30 [AndyS]
- +1 to Olaf.
- 16:31:57 [AndyS]
- q+
- 16:32:12 [ora]
- ack ora
- 16:32:12 [TallTed]
- s/One triple is rdf:nameOf :e << :e | :s :p :o >> and the second triple is :e :pp :oo . -- :s :p :o is not asserted.//
- 16:32:14 [TallTed]
- s/One triple is << :e | :s :p :o >> rdf:nameOf :e and the second triple is :e :pp :oo . -- :s :p :o is not asserted.//
- 16:32:14 [TallTed]
- s/(sorry about the mistypes - only the third example is meant)//
- 16:32:23 [TallTed]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:32:24 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/01-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
- 16:32:30 [gkellogg]
- q+
- 16:32:51 [gkellogg]
- q+ to ask about bare use of <<>> when it's not allowed as a subject.
- 16:33:11 [draggett]
- ora: one of the challenges is how we can explain things simply to avoid confusion both to ourselves and to others.
- 16:33:11 [ktk]
- Regrets: gtw
- 16:33:24 [AndyS]
- s/One triple is :e rdf:nameOf << :e | :s :p :o >> and the second triple is :e :pp :oo . -- :s :p :o is not asserted./One triple is :e rdf:nameOf <<( :s :p :o )>> and the second triple is :e :pp :oo . -- :s :p :o is not asserted./
- 16:33:54 [TallTed]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:33:55 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/01-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
- 16:34:48 [draggett]
- ... we are now risk confusing vertices and edges in our explanation. The double chevron is a vertex not an edge.
- 16:35:16 [draggett]
- ... Do we want special interpretation for rdf:namedOccurrenceOf
- 16:35:16 [Souri]
- q+
- 16:35:28 [ora]
- ack TallTed
- 16:35:28 [Zakim]
- TallTed, you wanted to ask for changes to the table, that may bring more clarity
- 16:36:25 [draggett]
- TallTed: I will tweak the markdown for the table shortly to add another row to improve clarity with SELECT *
- 16:36:42 [ora]
- q?
- 16:37:07 [olaf]
- +1 to replacing "SELECT ( COUNT(*) ... " by "SELECT * ..."
- 16:37:07 [draggett]
- ..., as well as cleaning up line breaks, code and non-code blocks
- 16:37:08 [ora]
- ack AndyS
- 16:37:35 [draggett]
- AndyS: are we agreed on the syntax?
- 16:37:57 [draggett]
- ... (for the Turtle syntax)
- 16:38:06 [pchampin]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jan/0095.html*
- 16:38:20 [pchampin]
- s|https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jan/0095.html*|
- 16:38:22 [pchampin]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jan/0095.html
- 16:38:59 [draggett]
- pchampin: I believe you are refering to the above emails, right?
- 16:39:01 [draggett]
- AndyS: yes
- 16:39:55 [ora]
- ack gkellogg
- 16:39:55 [Zakim]
- gkellogg, you wanted to ask about bare use of <<>> when it's not allowed as a subject.
- 16:39:56 [draggett]
- Ora: right
- 16:40:38 [AndyS]
- q+
- 16:40:48 [draggett]
- gkellogg: talks about bare use of <<>> when it's not allowed as a subject.
- 16:40:56 [pchampin]
- q+
- 16:42:43 [niklasl]
- q+
- 16:42:49 [draggett]
- ... it makes sense to select over just the term, as the subject.
- 16:42:51 [ora]
- ack Souri
- 16:43:53 [olaf]
- q+
- 16:44:02 [draggett]
- Souri: I like giving variables that match S, P and O. (gives details in relation to the table examples).
- 16:45:02 [ora]
- ack AndyS
- 16:45:58 [draggett]
- AndyS: the new term in the reification, the RDF star syntax is in the chairs starting point email, a named occurrence, which can come in 3 forms.
- 16:46:52 [ora]
- ack pchampin
- 16:46:55 [draggett]
- ... or as the 4 element form. The RDF star examples continue to work for the subject position. +1 to Ted for adding another row
- 16:47:18 [ora]
- ack niklasl
- 16:47:54 [AndyS]
- In the "reification atom" column, the new term is <<( )>>. RDF-star CG <<>> syntax is reused for a named occurrence subject or object position https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jan/0095.html . Without bar , a new blank node is used, with bar "|" and now 4 parts, it is the name of the reification.
- 16:49:09 [draggett]
- niklasl: talks about naming, we need to sort that out
- 16:50:12 [AndyS]
- q?
- 16:50:43 [draggett]
- niklasl: the main thing is whether or not we should just have reification or also have descriptors.
- 16:51:34 [AndyS]
- q+
- 16:51:53 [draggett]
- ... , these are not named graphs.
- 16:52:16 [draggett]
- ... I'm suggesting using rdf:value.
- 16:52:36 [Souri]
- q+
- 16:52:39 [draggett]
- ... I see a lot of value in the 3rd column in the table.
- 16:52:55 [pchampin]
- q+
- 16:53:00 [ora]
- ack olaf
- 16:53:59 [draggett]
- olaf: responding to Souri, refers to first column, 2nd row. This isn't something you can put directly in a Turtle file.
- 16:54:52 [tl]
- /me *now* i understand how olaf came to those numbers
- 16:55:22 [draggett]
- ora: we don't write vertices by them selves in a Turtle file.
- 16:55:58 [ora]
- ack AndyS
- 16:56:40 [draggett]
- AndyS: 2 points. The name of a triple is kind of special. Any RDF graph can link a name to an atom.
- 16:57:28 [draggett]
- re: multiple names, they should refer to the same triple (i.e. edge)
- 16:58:06 [draggett]
- ... . Atoms can simplify definition of well-formed n-triples
- 16:58:07 [ora]
- ack Souri
- 16:59:27 [draggett]
- Souri: reducing the number of triples is very important. Regarding vertices and edges, property graphs are easy to think about: properties on vertices and edges.
- 17:00:19 [draggett]
- ... A triple is an edge that doesn't allow duplicates.
- 17:01:17 [draggett]
- ... you can have multiple named edges, that's fine and helps with authoring.
- 17:01:30 [ora]
- ack pchampin
- 17:01:31 [fsasaki]
- scribe: fsasaki
- 17:01:36 [ktk]
- thanks draggett
- 17:02:24 [fsasaki]
- pa: edge is tricky concept. "e - spo" = name on edge, is not true ...
- 17:02:32 [fsasaki]
- ... edge is not asserted.
- 17:02:36 [AndyS]
- q+
- 17:02:56 [fsasaki]
- ... edge is an imaginary edge here. Triples are assertations, edges are potential links / assertations
- 17:03:01 [Souri]
- q+
- 17:03:17 [ora]
- q+
- 17:03:32 [fsasaki]
- ... naming an edge for future usage to talk about it: agree with that. All proposals make that possible
- 17:04:09 [ora]
- ack AndyS
- 17:04:10 [AndyS]
- q-
- 17:04:12 [fsasaki]
- ... one can still use the expanded syntax, with more or less syntactic sugar, in all options
- 17:04:34 [fsasaki]
- Andy: name of triples is just saying "there is name", without anything else
- 17:04:35 [ora]
- ack Souri
- 17:04:45 [fsasaki]
- ... better to have this as RDF triple, not a separate concept
- 17:05:20 [fsasaki]
- souri: syntactic sugar helps to keep amount of storage needed for n-triples dow
- 17:05:28 [fsasaki]
- s/dow/down/
- 17:05:49 [fsasaki]
- ... we reserve a name for an occurence of "spo"
- 17:06:10 [fsasaki]
- ... as a data creator, I want to keep some obvious names so that others can add annotations
- 17:06:17 [fsasaki]
- ... that is possible with the "spo" approach
- 17:06:42 [fsasaki]
- ... with the potential "edge", rdf triple is a special kind of edge.
- 17:07:12 [fsasaki]
- ... "e spo" is a potential edge. There is no question of its assertation, it is not an rdf triple kind of edge.
- 17:07:41 [pchampin]
- q+
- 17:07:47 [fsasaki]
- ... we could call it "occurence". I just want to enable: having the name so that others can add annotations
- 17:08:14 [fsasaki]
- ... want to allow users of RDF to have this mental model that uses the terminology of edges and nodes
- 17:08:45 [ora]
- ack ora
- 17:08:52 [fsasaki]
- ... this is very similar to the idea of the third column. This would make it easier to understand RDF for property graph people and general graph people
- 17:09:04 [fsasaki]
- ora: I am extremely worried
- 17:09:10 [gkellogg]
- q+
- 17:09:17 [fsasaki]
- ... I don't want to explain that we have triples and edges
- 17:09:36 [fsasaki]
- ... we already have explained that triples encompass edges
- 17:09:44 [fsasaki]
- .... in property graph there is a structure of vertices and edges
- 17:09:58 [fsasaki]
- ... in RDF, vertices are like points, they don't exist
- 17:10:19 [fsasaki]
- ... Souri says "introduce the name so that others can re-use it": peopel can do that all the time
- 17:10:32 [fsasaki]
- ... you can make a statement so that you can re-use names
- 17:10:37 [Souri]
- q+
- 17:10:44 [fsasaki]
- ... I don't see the need to introduce names for things that some day could be edges
- 17:11:06 [tl]
- q+
- 17:11:22 [fsasaki]
- ... without making any statements about them. We already have the practice to use names for statements. Let's try to keep this simple
- 17:11:30 [fsasaki]
- ... let's go back to thinking of vertices and edges.
- 17:11:43 [ora]
- ack pchampin
- 17:11:56 [fsasaki]
- pa: we said that triples are edges in the graph, agree
- 17:12:12 [fsasaki]
- ... the issue is: until rdf-star, there was a conflation
- 17:12:24 [fsasaki]
- ... now, we might need to distinguish notions
- 17:12:36 [Souri]
- I have no problem with column-3 way of introducing a name for a triple (actually, an occurrence of a triple or "RDF edge"). We don't have to introduce the idea of "edge".
- 17:12:45 [fsasaki]
- ... make it explicit, like Andy said, the distinction between edges and triples
- 17:12:52 [fsasaki]
- ... that is the key we need to clarify
- 17:13:31 [fsasaki]
- ... Souri's idea of a mental model: for me, realizing that the semantics could be adapted helped me to realize: I have a similar model for all approaches
- 17:13:45 [fsasaki]
- ... difference is only what we put into the abstract syntax or elsewhere
- 17:14:11 [fsasaki]
- ... adapting antoine's semantics in the different columns: they have the same interpretation!
- 17:14:35 [fsasaki]
- ... the only difference is that properties have standard names like "rdf:subject" ...
- 17:14:59 [fsasaki]
- .... or they do not have specific names, in the triple term solution "spo" are not anymore explicitly named,
- 17:15:07 [fsasaki]
- ... some semantic extensions can force them to be named
- 17:15:16 [fsasaki]
- ... in rdfn proposal the name is backed into the syntax
- 17:15:30 [fsasaki]
- ... differences are important, but they end up the same structure and interpretation
- 17:15:33 [ktk]
- q?
- 17:15:46 [ora]
- ack gkellogg
- 17:16:16 [fsasaki]
- greg: triples are members of graphs
- 17:16:25 [fsasaki]
- ... they are asserted to a particular graph
- 17:16:35 [fsasaki]
- ... semantics is the meaning of a triple
- 17:16:50 [fsasaki]
- ... statement is a statement made by a token of an RDF triple
- 17:17:01 [niklasl]
- <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-schema/#ch_statement>
- 17:17:08 [fsasaki]
- greg: might be confusing to add other things
- 17:17:18 [fsasaki]
- ... occurence nomenclature is challeging
- 17:17:28 [fsasaki]
- ... occurence of a triple is not a number of something
- 17:17:36 [fsasaki]
- ... a triple does not need to be a member of a graph
- 17:18:23 [fsasaki]
- ... trying to stick to: triples, graphs, trying to avoid the use of terms as occurence
- 17:18:28 [ora]
- ack Souri
- 17:18:40 [fsasaki]
- ora: I was not suggesting to add new terminology
- 17:18:54 [fsasaki]
- souri: "edge" does not have to be included a term
- 17:19:02 [fsasaki]
- ... developers just think in that way
- 17:19:15 [fsasaki]
- s/ term/s a term/
- 17:19:22 [ora]
- q+
- 17:19:28 [fsasaki]
- souri: we need to introduce the ability to use multiple names for a triple
- 17:19:32 [fsasaki]
- ... so that other people can use it
- 17:19:39 [fsasaki]
- ... that will allow the multiple edge idea
- 17:20:17 [fsasaki]
- ... will be nice to have good sugar syntax in n-triple
- 17:20:35 [ora]
- ack tl
- 17:20:38 [fsasaki]
- ... I am not insisting on a new term, only discussing a mental model
- 17:21:07 [fsasaki]
- thomas: +1 to PA, for the seeking consensus table shows that we have a lot of points in common, and PA also pointed out differences I agreed too
- 17:21:41 [fsasaki]
- ... about what Souri etc. said: a triple appears once, but we may want to speak about it multiple times
- 17:21:49 [TallTed]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 17:21:50 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/01-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
- 17:22:08 [fsasaki]
- ... asserted vs. unasserted, that gave us the opportunity to speak about unasserted
- 17:22:39 [fsasaki]
- ... in the CG we said: we want to speak about assertations without asserting them
- 17:22:45 [fsasaki]
- ... so we need a name for it
- 17:22:54 [fsasaki]
- ... we had discussion about claim and fact
- 17:23:04 [fsasaki]
- ... would be sub classes of rdf:statement
- 17:23:43 [fsasaki]
- ... in the sugar approach, you do not need the type. Could also be type claim or fact.
- 17:24:11 [fsasaki]
- ... we would provide the opportunity to be more precise
- 17:24:26 [Souri]
- q+
- 17:25:05 [ktk]
- q+
- 17:25:15 [TallTed]
- { :a | :Ted a :flounder . :a a :fact } ???
- 17:25:26 [fsasaki]
- q+
- 17:25:27 [ora]
- ack ora
- 17:25:49 [fsasaki]
- ora: suggest a straw poll
- 17:26:00 [fsasaki]
- ... what do people favor?
- 17:26:12 [fsasaki]
- q-
- 17:26:47 [pfps]
- I favour column 2 - sugar+
- 17:26:47 [tl]
- sugar
- 17:26:52 [Souri]
- +1 to proposals 3 and 4
- 17:26:57 [AndyS]
- 3 (reif atom, AZ semantics)
- 17:26:57 [TallTed]
- pchampin, AndyS -- I've created a PR on the MD for the table -- https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/pull/110
- 17:27:01 [doerthe]
- 3 (then in that order 1,2,4)
- 17:27:03 [Dominik_T]
- sugar+
- 17:27:06 [olaf]
- 3
- 17:27:10 [gkellogg]
- triple-term and sugar+
- 17:27:10 [pchampin]
- 3. triple-terms / descriptor
- 17:27:12 [fsasaki]
- abstain
- 17:27:20 [ora]
- 3, with 2 as my second choice
- 17:27:22 [niklasl]
- My current most favoured to least: 3, 1, 2, 4
- 17:27:53 [AZ]
- perhaps 1
- 17:27:54 [gkellogg]
- q+ to discuss impact of conformance level
- 17:28:22 [ora]
- ack Souri
- 17:28:45 [niklasl]
- (I think 3 unstars to 2 and 4 to 1 (or a mix of 1 and 2))
- 17:28:48 [fsasaki]
- souri: rdf 1.2 has to support minimum base, applications decide what to do
- 17:28:58 [fsasaki]
- ... we need to be able to attach a name to a triple
- 17:29:06 [fsasaki]
- ... then you can say "it is a claim"
- 17:29:35 [fsasaki]
- ... applications can have many things, e..g. use a standard vocabulary for that
- 17:29:37 [fsasaki]
- thomas: agree
- 17:29:39 [fsasaki]
- +1
- 17:29:48 [ora]
- q?
- 17:29:53 [ora]
- ack ktk
- 17:30:18 [AndyS]
- q+
- 17:30:26 [fsasaki]
- adrian: the triple terms proposal could be called a "native rdf-star" implementation
- 17:30:53 [fsasaki]
- ... would that be correct?
- 17:31:01 [ora]
- ack gkellogg
- 17:31:01 [Zakim]
- gkellogg, you wanted to discuss impact of conformance level
- 17:31:10 [pchampin]
- q+
- 17:31:13 [fsasaki]
- gregg: we have some notion of conformance level
- 17:31:39 [fsasaki]
- ... 2 might be an entailment of 3
- 17:31:59 [fsasaki]
- ... systems that do not support full performance would output entailed version
- 17:32:09 [fsasaki]
- ... is also needed for canonicalization
- 17:32:14 [pchampin]
- q-
- 17:32:21 [fsasaki]
- ... thinking of these as pairs might be useful
- 17:32:46 [tl]
- q+
- 17:33:07 [fsasaki]
- ora: like that idea. Do you see 3 as an optimzied version of 2?
- 17:33:10 [fsasaki]
- gregg: yes
- 17:33:28 [ora]
- ack AndyS
- 17:33:38 [pfps]
- I don't see 3 as any version, optimized or not, of 2
- 17:33:50 [fsasaki]
- andy: we discussed translation in CG
- 17:34:06 [fsasaki]
- ... we could say "the native impl. can be translated into RDF 1.1. graph"
- 17:34:33 [gb]
- gb has joined #rdf-star
- 17:34:43 [fsasaki]
- gregg: rdf xml token stuck to wellformedness constraints could be roundtripped
- 17:34:47 [fsasaki]
- andy: not sure
- 17:35:07 [fsasaki]
- ... one could have two different graphs with the same base
- 17:35:15 [fsasaki]
- ... for a standalone rdf xml file that would be possible
- 17:35:23 [pchampin]
- pfps, az-RDF-Reification semantics does create a link between 2 and 3
- 17:35:38 [fsasaki]
- pfps: 3-4 change RDF data model
- 17:35:41 [fsasaki]
- ... 1-2 do not
- 17:35:56 [fsasaki]
- ... 3 adds triple terms, a recursive thing
- 17:36:00 [fsasaki]
- ... 4 adds edges
- 17:36:09 [fsasaki]
- ora: so triple terms could not be identifers?
- 17:36:19 [fsasaki]
- pfps: you could, but that then is 2, not 3
- 17:36:20 [Souri]
- q+
- 17:36:43 [fsasaki]
- ... the abstract syntax is different, model theory is different
- 17:37:00 [niklasl]
- q+
- 17:37:24 [ora]
- ack tl
- 17:37:41 [fsasaki]
- thomas: we need syntactic sugar, also in sparql
- 17:38:01 [fsasaki]
- ... that is the user facing part
- 17:38:24 [fsasaki]
- ... the implementation can be done in triple terms, in named graphs, or via standard reification
- 17:38:49 [fsasaki]
- ... wellformedness gives you guarentee that you can work with optimized implementation
- 17:38:59 [fsasaki]
- ... the four approaches are different ways to specify this
- 17:39:15 [fsasaki]
- ... so why do we need to have the term in the abstract syntax, the model
- 17:39:21 [AndyS]
- q+
- 17:39:23 [ora]
- ack Souri
- 17:39:26 [fsasaki]
- ... if all is just encoded in the syntax
- 17:39:40 [fsasaki]
- souri: 3-4 is introducing s.t. different
- 17:39:51 [fsasaki]
- ... question is: what will go to abstract syntax
- 17:40:07 [fsasaki]
- ... where do we introduce complexity?
- 17:40:16 [fsasaki]
- ... at the abstract syntax level we do not need this
- 17:40:27 [fsasaki]
- ... as long as the surface syntax has this, it will be fine
- 17:41:04 [pchampin]
- q+
- 17:41:18 [fsasaki]
- ... once you get to lower level, there will be a lot of verbosity
- 17:41:19 [ktk]
- q+
- 17:41:33 [ora]
- ack niklasl
- 17:41:41 [fsasaki]
- ... let's keep the consice syntax as much as possible
- 17:42:36 [fsasaki]
- niklasl: hard to access recursion from the abstract syntax
- 17:43:23 [fsasaki]
- ... not sure if it is valuable to be able to encode a recursive silouette of data sets
- 17:43:28 [ora]
- ack AndyS
- 17:43:57 [fsasaki]
- andy: rules are recursive, but the output are trees
- 17:44:30 [ora]
- ack pchampin
- 17:45:06 [Souri]
- +1 to Andy's comment about implications on SPARQL behavior
- 17:46:14 [fsasaki]
- pa: difference boils down to how much constraints do we want to put into abstract syntax
- 17:46:27 [fsasaki]
- ... the table explicitly mentions the abstract syntax
- 17:47:01 [fsasaki]
- ... idea of welformedness is: keep abstract syntax as is
- 17:47:10 [fsasaki]
- ... have weaker constraints in addition
- 17:47:15 [Souri]
- q+
- 17:47:27 [fsasaki]
- ... the more you go the right in the table, the constraints are backed into abstract syntax
- 17:47:58 [tl]
- q+
- 17:48:03 [fsasaki]
- ... in triple terms, it is impossible to remove the triple from the triple term and fits into abstract syntax
- 17:48:14 [fsasaki]
- ... adding this means: loose some flexibility
- 17:48:35 [Souri]
- s/loose/lose/
- 17:48:53 [fsasaki]
- ... but it provides some guarantees that esp. sparql implementers help
- 17:48:55 [gkellogg]
- q+ to note that a TRIPLE-TERM in the abstract syntax, without rdf:nameOf cannot be expressed in any concrete syntax
- 17:49:07 [fsasaki]
- ... as we saw in the CG and RDF star implementations
- 17:49:48 [fsasaki]
- ... the 4th is more change to abstraction than 3
- 17:49:54 [ora]
- ack ktk
- 17:49:57 [fsasaki]
- ... that is why I prefer 3
- 17:50:18 [fsasaki]
- adrian: agree on souri to be concise, that is why I like 3 more than 1 and 2
- 17:50:29 [fsasaki]
- ... agree with what andy said about sparql
- 17:50:51 [fsasaki]
- ... with n-triples, I still do not understand what to do, seriailzng it and back
- 17:50:59 [fsasaki]
- ... we use lists in turtle etc. and it works
- 17:51:07 [fsasaki]
- ... but you cannot re-build the same structure in turtle
- 17:51:16 [fsasaki]
- ... this is what worries me with 1 and 2
- 17:51:25 [fsasaki]
- ... if we do not find that I have an issue
- 17:51:29 [fsasaki]
- ... lists suck
- 17:51:41 [fsasaki]
- ... if we can solve that, I am ok
- 17:52:01 [fsasaki]
- ... we have discussed this several times, but that is the elefant in the room in my view
- 17:52:07 [ora]
- ack Souri
- 17:52:14 [fsasaki]
- ... triple terms provide that in a abstract way
- 17:52:32 [fsasaki]
- souri: 4 is not a stronger change than 3
- 17:52:39 [AndyS]
- q+
- 17:52:42 [ora]
- q+
- 17:52:56 [fsasaki]
- ... "e" is saying: there is one thing for association
- 17:53:11 [fsasaki]
- ... about conversion: that is very important
- 17:53:38 [fsasaki]
- ... if we introduce re-ification atom like things
- 17:53:47 [fsasaki]
- ... what happens if there is a mixture?
- 17:54:08 [fsasaki]
- ... should s.t. compact never be expanded?
- 17:54:19 [AndyS]
- q-
- 17:54:20 [fsasaki]
- ... we can keep the sparql simpler, otherwise it can be complex
- 17:54:32 [fsasaki]
- ... let's try to avoid complexity
- 17:54:33 [pchampin]
- in simple entailment, I don't expect any "automatic conversion" between the two
- 17:54:46 [ora]
- ack tl
- 17:54:49 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/01-rdf-star-minutes.html fsasaki
- 17:54:55 [pchampin]
- but AZ demonstrated that this can be achieved via a semantic extension
- 17:55:04 [fsasaki]
- thomas: never thought about back conversion
- 17:55:39 [fsasaki]
- ... with the reification based proposal, I only need to change the syntax parser
- 17:55:54 [ora]
- q?
- 17:56:06 [ora]
- ack gkellogg
- 17:56:06 [Zakim]
- gkellogg, you wanted to note that a TRIPLE-TERM in the abstract syntax, without rdf:nameOf cannot be expressed in any concrete syntax
- 17:56:10 [fsasaki]
- ... what do we gain if we put the change into abstract syntax?
- 17:56:55 [fsasaki]
- gregg: concrete syntax is restriced to tokenized version of a claim
- 17:57:09 [fsasaki]
- ... about lists, we may want to fix them
- 17:57:17 [pchampin]
- we would need concrete syntax for "raw" triple-terms/descriptors, if only for N-Triples
- 17:57:20 [ora]
- ack ora
- 17:57:42 [fsasaki]
- ora: challenge is: find consensus between 2-3
- 17:57:50 [fsasaki]
- ... those get a lot of support
- 17:58:18 [fsasaki]
- ... I could be convinced of 2, although I had thought of 3
- 17:58:28 [fsasaki]
- ... can continue discussion in semantics call
- 17:58:38 [fsasaki]
- ... think it is between 2 and 3
- 17:58:51 [fsasaki]
- ... adjourned, see many of you tomrrow
- 17:58:58 [pchampin]
- RRSAgent, make minutes
- 17:58:59 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/01-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
- 17:59:05 [TallTed]
- my belated straw poll answers -- 2, 3, 1, 4 ... roughly
- 17:59:10 [TallTed]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 17:59:12 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/01-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
- 17:59:18 [olaf]
- olaf has left #rdf-star
- 18:00:16 [TallTed]
- present+
- 18:00:28 [TallTed]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 18:00:29 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/01-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
- 18:13:10 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 18:39:37 [pfps]
- pfps has left #rdf-star
- 18:59:31 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 19:14:15 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 19:30:01 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 19:42:01 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 20:00:20 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #rdf-star
- 21:58:05 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 22:01:59 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 22:24:13 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 22:42:25 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 23:09:55 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 23:31:03 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 23:53:32 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star