Meeting minutes
continuing discussion of https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/seeking-consensus-2024-01.md
<tl> niklas: in proposal 1 just add some :e :partOf :g to "fake" a graph containement
<niklasl> yes, I could go with that too if that's where we end up
<niklasl> +1 to gregg's point about working with existing RDF 1.1 systems
<pchampin> +1, it's too early to talk about optimization :->
<niklasl> +1, more about well-formedness / integrity perhaps?
<Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to ask about compliance levels
<niklasl> +1 for a very neutral name for what is currently rdfx:nameOf
<TallTed> double chevron == `<< >>`
<TallTed> properly, "double angle brackets"
<Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to talk about renaming reification vocabulary
<Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to ask about <<()>> in concrete syntaxes
<niklasl> A way to "control" sugar+: rdfx:triple rdfs:range [ owl:intersectionOf ( [ owl:onProperty rdf:subject ; owl:cardinality 1 ] [ owl:onProperty rdf:predicate ; owl:cardinality 1 ] [ owl:onProperty rdf:object ; owl:cardinality 1 ]) ] .
<pchampin> well-formed-ness constraint: "the object of rdf:nameOf must have exactly one rdf:subject, one rdf:predicate, one rdf:object, and no two distinct nodes in the object of rdf:nameOf can have the same subject, predicate and object"
<doerthe> thank you andy, I was really just curious
<niklasl> +1 to Gregg
<AndyS> :e1 rdf:nameOf <<( :s :p :o )>> . :e2 rdf:nameOf <<( :s :p :o )>> . matches :e1 rdf:nameOf ?Z . :e2 rdf:nameOf ?Z . -- one term in the object position, used twice.
<pchampin> + 1 AndyS
<niklasl> +1 to AndyS's example; that is what we need.
<pchampin> I stand corrected, this goes beyond the problem of leanness