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