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