15:43:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:43:36 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-rdf-star-irc
15:44:07 <ktk> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/5ecc5c5f-5cd2-410c-b97c-6b13c6b843f1/20240229T110000/
15:44:07 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:44:07 <agendabot> agenda+ W3C Breakout Day Participation -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/breakouts-day-2024
15:44:07 <agendabot> agenda+ Naming Things [2]
15:44:29 <ktk> meeting: RDF-star WG biweekly long meeting
15:50:15 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:55:22 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
15:56:02 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #rdf-star
15:58:43 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
15:58:52 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-star
15:58:59 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
15:59:20 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF-star WG biweekly long meeting 2024-02-29 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/5ecc5c5f-5cd2-410c-b97c-6b13c6b843f1/20240229T110000/
15:59:22 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
15:59:24 <TallTed> Zakim, bye
15:59:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
15:59:32 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:59:38 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
15:59:38 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:00:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
16:00:21 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-rdf-star-irc
16:00:42 <TallTed> zakim, this will be RDF-Star
16:00:42 <Zakim> ok, TallTed
16:00:44 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/5ecc5c5f-5cd2-410c-b97c-6b13c6b843f1/20240229T110000/
16:00:46 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-star WG biweekly long meeting
16:00:49 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/02/23-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:00:50 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/03/01-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:01:00 <TallTed> scribe: TallTed
16:01:00 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:01:00 <agendabot> agenda+ W3C Breakout Day Participation -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/breakouts-day-2024
16:01:00 <agendabot> agenda+ Naming Things [2]
16:01:06 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
16:01:06 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:01:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:01:10 <gtw> present+
16:01:12 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:01:30 <TallTed> chair: ora
16:01:54 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:02:19 <ora> present+
16:02:19 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
16:02:21 <AndyS> present+
16:02:34 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:02:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:02:46 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:02:46 <TallTed> present+
16:02:52 <doerthe> present+
16:02:53 <Dominik_T> present+
16:03:15 <TallTed> present+ ora, pfps, gkellogg
16:03:19 <TallTed> Zakim, first item
16:03:19 <Zakim> I don't understand 'first item', TallTed
16:03:19 <draggett> draggett has joined #rdf-star
16:03:23 <TallTed> Zakim, open first item
16:03:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'open first item', TallTed
16:03:24 <draggett> present+
16:03:41 <TallTed> Zakim, open item 1
16:03:41 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- W3C Breakout Day Participation -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/breakouts-day-2024 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:03:43 <olaf> present+
16:03:54 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:04:33 <niklasl> present+
16:04:33 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
16:04:33 <TallTed> ora: a fully-virtual TPAC Breakout day is coming. Registration deadline is very soon. Do we want to present anything?
16:04:45 <TallTed> ... I probably don't have time to prepare something. Does anyone else?
16:05:35 <TallTed> ktk: There are a couple of session types/lengths (50 minute and 10 minute), much shorter than at TPAC, purely virtual
16:05:48 <AndyS> q?
16:06:02 <TallTed> ora: Anyone have interest in participating?
16:06:18 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:06:26 <TallTed> AndyS: I do. It's helpful to share work as we go.
16:06:32 <niklasl> q+
16:06:32 <Souri> present+
16:06:46 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
16:06:46 <Zakim> Present: gtw, ora, AndyS, TallTed, doerthe, Dominik_T, pfps, gkellogg, draggett, olaf, niklasl, Souri
16:06:48 <Zakim> On IRC I see Souri, fsasaki, niklasl, draggett, doerthe, Dominik_T, olaf, ora, RRSAgent, Zakim, gkellogg, pfps, AZ, tl, TallTed, AndyS, Tpt, ktk, pchampin, driib, csarven, gb, gtw,
16:06:48 <Zakim> ... AnthonySpencer, VladimirAlexiev, SintayewGashaw, Timothe, smoothsalt, joraboi445, rhiaro, agendabot
16:06:57 <pfps> present+
16:07:01 <olaf> present+
16:07:26 <gkellogg> present+
16:08:06 <TallTed> [ chatter about possible time slots ]
16:09:31 <niklasl> q-
16:09:35 <TallTed> ora: Can participate, but probably not build a presentation
16:09:58 <TallTed> niklasl: Can probably do some advance work, and join for the session
16:11:14 <TallTed> ora: We can follow up via the mailing list. Wanted to announce now to enable some time for advance work.
16:11:48 <TallTed> TallTed: Later is usually better for me, but will try to join whenever it happens.
16:12:00 <tl> present+
16:12:23 <ktk> present+
16:12:46 <TallTed> Zakim, next item
16:12:46 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Naming Things -- taken up [from 2]
16:12:50 <Souri> he just joined
16:13:30 <gkellogg> As it happens, I'll need to miss the Breakouts Day entirely.
16:13:43 <TallTed> ora: Enrico's email is as good a starting point as any...https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Feb/0069.html
16:15:35 <pchampin> present+
16:15:37 <TallTed> s/any... https/
16:15:47 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:15:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:15:56 <ora> q?
16:15:58 <gkellogg> q+
16:16:09 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:16:22 <TallTed> s/he just joined//
16:17:03 <TallTed> s|s/any... https/|s/any...https/any... https/|
16:17:10 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:17:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:17:17 <tl> q+
16:17:17 <pchampin> q+
16:17:19 <ora> ack tl
16:17:32 <TallTed> gkellogg: thinks we need to name `claim` and `mention`
16:17:59 <TallTed> tl: adds `type` and `instance`
16:18:19 <TallTed> ora: you mean `triple type` and `triple instance`
16:19:16 <ora> ack pchampin
16:19:54 <TallTed> pchampin: `claim` seems a misnomer. A triple that is not asserted is not a claim. Could live with `mention`.
16:20:53 <TallTed> ... unless we want to repurpose `rdf:type` for `nameOf` or `instanceType`, we might need to think further...
16:21:32 <pchampin> q+
16:21:34 <TallTed> enrico: `type` is very dangerous to re-use because it already has specific meanings in RDF and in OWL
16:21:43 <pchampin> q-
16:22:29 <tl> q+
16:22:30 <TallTed> ora: Is there some term in the same neighborhood as `type` and `class` that hasn't been taken yet, that we might be able to use?
16:22:36 <pchampin> q+
16:22:53 <niklasl> "abstraction" and "reification"; but .... :(
16:23:03 <ora> ack tl
16:23:09 <TallTed> ... Could our explanations be improved if we say that our things are *like* `type` or `class`?
16:23:19 <niklasl> q+
16:23:29 <ora> ack pchampin
16:23:35 <TallTed> tl: We could just drop `type`, and talk about a `triple` and `instances of that triple`
16:24:24 <TallTed> pchampin: I see an elephant in the room. What about having one term being the name of multiple triples? Do we want to make that ill formed?
16:24:45 <gkellogg> q+
16:24:48 <TallTed> ... Maybe it's a bad idea to have one name for multiple triples ... but maybe it's not?
16:25:05 <ora> ack niklasl
16:25:13 <TallTed> ... There are a lot of underlying assumptions behind our proposed names.
16:26:07 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:26:11 <TallTed> niklasl: The "abstract triple" vs "has triple relationship" ... As enrico noted, we need to also track `domain` and `range` of these things we're naming
16:27:10 <TallTed> gkellogg: Multiplicity problem is just a consequence of the model. We can't entirely predict or force usage patterns that emerge based on what we specify.
16:27:51 <TallTed> ... What we're creating is kind of a parallel to named graphs, meant to be atomic graphs (containing a single triple), but these might contain more than one triple, which might have good reason...
16:28:34 <TallTed> ... Complications of multiplicity might mean we need a(nother) different concept.
16:28:40 <niklasl> q+
16:28:48 <ora> ack niklasl
16:28:57 <TallTed> ora: We might need some "neutral" terms that don't convey to much meaning within their names
16:29:52 <TallTed> niklasl: We probably will need to explain the relationships between what we're specifying and traditional reification and named graphs...
16:30:16 <AZ> present+
16:30:43 <TallTed> ... `claim` will be a thing I want to talk about. `rdf:value` might be an actual relationship I want to use; have been toying with it.
16:30:44 <pchampin> claims *can* be modelled by the << ... >> construct: ; but that construct will also be used for *other* things than claims
16:31:56 <TallTed> ... `structured literals` and their values may play into this as well
16:32:07 <TallTed> ora: what does current RDF say about `value`?
16:32:41 <Souri> q+
16:32:42 <TallTed> niklasl: idiomatic property. its `domain` and `range` are both `resource`
16:32:52 <fsasaki> present+
16:33:07 <TallTed> gkellogg: we could certainly mint a subproperty of rdf:value
16:33:49 <ora> ack Souri
16:33:49 <TallTed> tl: I would be against it because we're talking about a small subset.
16:34:50 <TallTed> Souri: Agree with tl. We're building on RDF 1.1. Should avoid possible confusion-causing names.
16:35:16 <ora> q+
16:36:24 <ora> ack ora
16:36:25 <pchampin> q+
16:36:27 <TallTed> ... Associating multiple triple terms with a single name could have value, but once that's done, you don't have a way to describe *one* of those triple terms
16:36:52 <niklasl> q+
16:37:05 <ora> ack pchampin
16:37:10 <AndyS> q+
16:37:26 <TallTed> ora: RDF 1.1 punted on some things that we're now running into and may need to specify more clearly
16:38:12 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
16:38:14 <enrico> present+
16:38:33 <TallTed> pchampin: I don't like `nameOf` for many-to-many relations. it makes the name less useful as an identifier. mixes the semantic and the syntactic levels
16:39:18 <tl> q+
16:39:25 <TallTed> TallTed: welcome back, HTTP Range 14
16:40:05 <ora> ack niklasl
16:40:39 <TallTed> niklasl: We'll need to see how our actual use cases are handled by each of these options
16:40:48 <ktk> q+
16:41:30 <TallTed> ... `rdf:value` should probably be set aside. The discussion was worthwhile.
16:42:05 <pchampin> "proxy", "surrogate" ?
16:42:07 <ora> ack AndyS
16:42:44 <ktk> q-
16:43:11 <ora> ack tl
16:43:32 <TallTed> AndyS: difficulty is that relationship between subject and object is not singular, there's a two-step involved. I remember discussion of `rdf:namedOccurrence` that got shortened to `rdf:occurrence`
16:44:05 <gtw> q+
16:44:14 <Souri> +1 to rdf:proxy
16:44:18 <AndyS> s/`rdf:occurrence`/`rdf:nameOf`/
16:44:25 <niklasl> I think Andy's right. In some cases we kind of pass from the "occurrence" "through the triple token" to the triple...
16:44:31 <ora> ack gtw
16:45:41 <tl> q+
16:45:51 <ora> ack tl
16:46:45 <TallTed> tl: `type` is used for lots of things already, so people are used to disambiguating it, so we shouldn't discard it yet
16:47:24 <TallTed> ora: we have lots of ideas, without any clear direction
16:47:37 <TallTed> gkellogg: rdf:proxy seems to have possibility
16:48:02 <TallTed> tl: but proxy "stands in" for something, which is not what we're doing
16:48:23 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
16:48:46 <enrico> q+
16:48:47 <niklasl> +0.75 for rdf:represents ...
16:48:54 <ora> ack enrico
16:49:13 <niklasl> ... or representedBy ...
16:49:28 <TallTed> enrico: most neutral term may be `associatedTo` or `relatesTo`
16:49:38 <niklasl> q+
16:50:06 <ora> ack niklasl
16:50:48 <TallTed> niklasl: `descriptor`? Makes sense to have range = triple, which seems to be what we want.
16:50:57 <pchampin> I can live with 'descriptor'
16:51:19 <TallTed> ora: What about acknowledging that what we're really after is the one level of indirection, and somehow reflecting that in the name
16:51:21 <enrico> q+
16:51:31 <ora> ack enrico
16:52:09 <Souri> rdf:refers or rdf:refFor?
16:52:13 <tl> "associatedTo" or "relatedTo" is so general that it's almost meaningless
16:52:16 <pchampin> q+
16:52:24 <ora> ack pchampin
16:53:12 <ora> q+
16:53:15 <ktk> q+
16:53:20 <ora> ack ora
16:53:37 <enrico> q+
16:53:40 <ora> ack ktk
16:54:00 <TallTed> [ ora & AndyS suggest that `nameOf` might be least-bad option ]
16:54:09 <ora> ack enrico
16:54:32 <niklasl> I'm still not sold on nameOf (does not really work for domain Resource and range Triple)
16:54:43 <TallTed> enrico: `isDenotedBy` comes to mind ... but may not be best in this arena
16:54:54 <tl> "nameOf" doesn't make sense. "e1" is the "nameOf" "e1". the relation between "e1" and teh abstract triple is different from naming.
16:55:12 <AndyS> denotes -> "to be a mark or sign of;"
16:55:45 <TallTed> ... `denotes` to me means there is an abstract thing, which we're calling tripleTerm. Occurrence is a denotation of that tripleTerm.
16:55:59 <AndyS> looking the word up ... "to be a name or designation for; mean."
16:56:52 <pchampin> q+
16:56:55 <niklasl> <marriage> ?hastriplerelation <<(<elisabeth> :marriedTo <richard>)>> .
16:56:57 <tl> q+
16:56:59 <ora> ack pchampin
16:56:59 <TallTed> enrico: maybe `aNameOf`?
16:57:32 <TallTed> pchampin: `standsFor` might be usable in this context
16:57:33 <ora> ack tl
16:58:22 <TallTed> tl: `instanceOf` seems self-evident option
16:58:45 <niklasl> q+
16:59:44 <Souri> rdf:aNameOf sounds good, but we can avoid "name" by using rdf:aRefTo
16:59:50 <ktk> TallTed: ok
17:00:03 <pchampin> q+
17:00:03 <doerthe> sorry, I was distracted
17:00:05 <ora> ack niklasl
17:00:05 <TallTed> s/TallTed: ok//
17:00:10 <doerthe> I can take over ted
17:00:24 <doerthe> scribe+
17:00:33 <ktk> tnx TallTed
17:00:35 <TallTed> scribe-
17:00:43 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:00:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:01:21 <ora> ack pchampin
17:01:32 <doerthe> niklasl: I would like to have the name neutral and technical, but the range should be triple
17:02:27 <AndyS> :e rdf:forTriple <<( :s :p :o )>>
17:02:28 <doerthe> pchampin: maybe instance of triple, to not have confusion to rdf:type, luckily, we will not have to write it too often
17:02:29 <Souri> q+
17:02:39 <eBremer> present+
17:02:49 <doerthe> ... but I am still worried about the many-to -many relationship
17:03:00 <ora> ack Souri
17:03:46 <ora> q+
17:04:07 <doerthe> Souri: I agree with PA, that instanceOf might bring problems with the many-to-manyaspect, maybe "aName" would work, or better "aRefTo", for reference to
17:04:32 <ora> ack ora
17:05:19 <tl> q+
17:05:24 <ora> ack tl
17:05:33 <AndyS> q+
17:05:42 <ora> ack AndyS
17:05:49 <doerthe> ora: we have many proposals, we should take into account the whole context, that is we should consider the names together
17:06:52 <niklasl> q+
17:06:57 <ora> ack niklasl
17:07:15 <enrico> q+
17:08:33 <ora> ack enrico
17:08:37 <doerthe> niklas: occurrence could claim things we would want to have as a type. Maybe we need to look at the names. A bad choice would be reification, maybe descriptor is a good choice? Maybe edge?Domain would be resource, range triple
17:08:47 <tl> maybe "edgeOf" A) can't be confused with types/instances in the general sense B) emphasized that the domain has an identity of its own and isn't just an attribute of the range
17:08:56 <pchampin> q+
17:09:13 <doerthe> enrico: We should not give a name to the domain of the predicate, since that is really open how you use it
17:09:40 <doerthe> ... could be an event, or an actual triple, a statement,...
17:10:25 <doerthe> ... the range should be fixed.
17:10:53 <niklasl> <written-statement-token> rdf:descriptor <<(<s> <p> <o>)>> .  <first-marriage> rdf:descriptor <<(<s> :marriedTo <o>)>> .
17:10:57 <ora> ack pchampin
17:11:00 <doerthe> ora: we will need to talk about things, then we need a name
17:11:53 <doerthe> pchampin: I agree with Enrico, I like "forTriple" as it was also proposed by Andy
17:12:05 <eBremer> "aliasOf"
17:13:05 <doerthe> ... the domain should not be fixed as it will be used in different ways
17:13:40 <doerthe> ora: should we take a strawpoll to see which terms are popular?
17:14:44 <doerthe> ... we have to choose the names for all concepts together. I like "nameOf" but I am afraid that we will not find proper terms for the other concepts which fit
17:14:45 <niklasl> +1 for rdf:reifies (I think it's just as good as rdf:descriptor)
17:14:51 <tl> q+
17:14:56 <ora> ack tl
17:14:59 <pfps> I like xyzzy :-)
17:14:59 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:15:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:15:25 <doerthe> ... occurrence is not horrible, but also not perfect
17:15:56 <doerthe> tl: nameOf and occurrenceOf are really different
17:16:05 <Souri> rdf:edgeFor, rdf:hasEdgeFor
17:16:39 <Souri> q+
17:16:58 <tl> edgeOf
17:17:27 <ora> ack Souri
17:17:34 <tl> edgeInstanceOf
17:18:19 <pchampin> q+
17:18:22 <AndyS> My pref is not fixed but at the moment rdf:forTriple, rdf:reifies, rdf:tokenOf -- none perfect
17:18:34 <pchampin> q-
17:18:42 <enrico> q+
17:18:47 <doerthe> Souri: I like edge, edgeFor, because we have edges on domain side. Edge is not taken and an edge for a triple is not taken yet
17:18:48 <ora> ack enrico
17:19:03 <doerthe> enrico: I like the edge idea
17:19:15 <pchampin> q+
17:19:18 <AndyS> q+
17:19:23 <ora> ack pchampin
17:19:44 <doerthe> gkellogg: "remark"?
17:20:01 <Souri> rdf:hasEdgeFor
17:20:07 <niklasl> "an edge is an unordered pair {v,w}, while a directed edge is called an arc ..."
17:20:23 <AZ> My support for any name for this thing is irrelevant because I am in favour of "option 1" where this thing does not exist
17:20:52 <doerthe> pchampin: I dislike remark, the edge has the problem that it focusses on syntax and does not solve the many-to-many problem, but it has the advantage that it helps when connecting to property graphs
17:21:13 <Souri> +1 to a name based on "edge"
17:21:18 <tl> q+
17:21:28 <ora> ack AndyS
17:21:35 <doerthe> ... we will not find a term which is generic enough to cover all possible future use cases will be impossible
17:22:46 <niklasl> q+
17:23:05 <pchampin> well, properties are initially unary predicates, so let's no brag about people getting the terminology wrong :->
17:23:09 <doerthe> AndyS: In labeled property graphs they use edge for unordered pair or nodes, there the term is already taken
17:23:21 <doerthe> ... tokenOf could be a proposal
17:23:35 <ora> ack tl
17:23:44 <doerthe> ... betoken also exists
17:24:59 <Souri> q+
17:25:36 <ora> ack niklasl
17:25:38 <pchampin> we can indeed bite the bullet, the story would be "don't fear reification anymore, we just fixed it" :)
17:25:48 <doerthe> tl: RDF spec has token and instance when talking about reification, but the token is actually used differently, I like "reifies", because it does not say anything about whether it is asserted, no many-to-one problem,...
17:25:58 <pchampin> q+
17:26:01 <ora> ack Souri
17:26:18 <doerthe> niklasl: reifies seems good to me
17:26:35 <AndyS> q+
17:27:01 <doerthe> Souri: What is the domain of reifies? Also: I am worried about what users think here, the name is scary
17:27:50 <doerthe> ... I am worried about that. Token is also very difficult
17:28:18 <pchampin> q-
17:28:32 <tl> souri: what about edges reifying abstract triples?
17:28:41 <doerthe> ... edge has the advantage that we can really connect to property graphs which is good for users. The terms are not identical, but users will get the connection
17:29:20 <doerthe> ... it would really be good to help the many users of property graphs understanding RDF
17:29:31 <tl> s/reifying abstract triples?/reifying abstract triples, "edge" being the domain of "reifies"?
17:29:49 <fsasaki> +1 to Souri about the value of the term "edge" for building bridges to the PG community.
17:30:04 <ora> ack pchampin
17:30:08 <doerthe> ... Concrete suggestion: anEdgeOf, hasEdgeFor, something like that
17:30:21 <doerthe> AndyS
17:30:26 <ora> ack AndyS
17:30:35 <ora> q+
17:30:56 <eBremer> :e :means <<(:s :p :o)>>?
17:31:25 <gkellogg> q+
17:31:25 <niklasl> q+
17:31:29 <ora> ack ora
17:31:32 <doerthe> AndyS: None of the proposals work for me, reifies is very technical
17:31:50 <doerthe> ... but maybe it works
17:31:55 <AZ> instead of naming the relation, use a blank node in predicate position :)
17:33:08 <doerthe> ora: Maybe it helps to also think about how we would explain the relation. People will not see the term we decide on that often, but we need to be able to explain the relation between triple terms and occurrences (current name)
17:33:35 <doerthe> ... we can't use type, name, instance is also problematic...
17:34:22 <AndyS> Shortest -- "rdf:for" and rely on the spec text around it.
17:34:42 <doerthe> ... I also agree with Enrico that we do not need a really specific name, we for example do not need a domain. We also need to be careful to not use terms with a fixed meaning in philosophy
17:35:07 <eBremer> +1 rdf:for
17:35:23 <doerthe> ... where does it leave us? Maybe reifies is a good idea? Andys proposal "for" could also be good
17:35:54 <ora> q?
17:36:17 <doerthe> ... eBremer suggested rdf:means
17:36:19 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:36:35 <Souri> what would call the subjects of rdf:for?
17:37:00 <doerthe> gkellogg: rdf:means is appealing, but i could be confusing with semantics
17:37:14 <pchampin> q+
17:38:10 <doerthe> ... rdf:reifies might be scary, but it really says what it is, it is accurate
17:38:10 <ora> ack niklasl
17:38:19 <tl> q+
17:38:46 <doerthe> niklasl: I agree with that, also: people will most likely never use the predicate directly since it results from syntactic sugar.
17:38:52 <ktk> reificationFor
17:39:25 <doerthe> ... I also thought about implies, but then we get into problems when we do reasoning
17:39:34 <ora> ack pchampin
17:39:42 <doerthe> ... many people also already encountered reification
17:39:58 <tl> mini-definition of reification: "reification is instantiation of triples. use the term 'reify' when you instantiate a triple"
17:39:58 <Souri> q+
17:40:41 <doerthe> pchampin: I also think that reification is accurate and we tried to not use the term, but we could say that we do "reification right"
17:41:02 <ktk> +1 on explaining multiple ways.
17:41:38 <doerthe> ... of course we also need to have non-experts in mind, but we can use other predicates. I like the idea of "edge" to have good explanations
17:41:44 <ora> ack tl
17:41:49 <doerthe> ... for users we will have different stories
17:42:04 <Souri> +1 to rdf:reifies and explaining in multiple ways (edge, for example)
17:42:12 <ora> ack Souri
17:42:32 <doerthe> tl: to take the fear away, we should simply explain that this is what we do when we state the triple in that way, nothing more
17:42:52 <ora> q+
17:42:59 <ora> ack ora
17:43:07 <enrico> +1 for reifies
17:43:11 <doerthe> Souri: reifies captures what we are doing, important is that we can explain it well, but I think we could do that
17:43:13 <enrico> q+
17:43:39 <doerthe> ora: How is the subject of rdf:reifies then called?
17:43:40 <ora> ack enrico
17:43:40 <Souri> q+
17:43:49 <doerthe> gkellogg: Reification?
17:43:51 <niklasl> q+
17:43:51 <pchampin> "new style reification" :)
17:43:58 <ktk> q+
17:44:02 <pfps> rdf:NSR
17:44:02 <tl> q+
17:44:33 <doerthe> enrico: I agree, it would be reification
17:44:39 <ora> ack Souri
17:44:40 <niklasl> [] a ex:Edge ; rdf:reifies <<(<s> <p> <o>)>> . # ... etc. for all kinds of different types of subjects.
17:44:47 <doerthe> ... then the range could be triple terms
17:45:08 <AndyS> q+
17:45:10 <ktk> q-
17:45:32 <ora> ack niklasl
17:45:32 <doerthe> Souri: I was worried about the subject, I think I would see them as edge or sets of edges
17:46:30 <ora> ack tl
17:46:30 <pchampin> +1 : rdf:Statement reification is just one kind of reification in RDF 1.1; Wikidata has its own form of reification, etc.
17:46:35 <doerthe> nicklasl: I wrote an example out. There are different possible kinds of reification and we now support many of them as opposed to classical rdf-reification
17:47:12 <Souri> A reification can be talked about as an edge or, in general, an edge-set.
17:47:17 <ora> ack AndyS
17:47:24 <doerthe> tl: do we have many-to-many relation? is that possible? reifies would still work, but the domain is problematic, since that could be anything
17:47:44 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:47:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:48:28 <ora> STRAWPOLL: Could you support rdf:reifies?
17:48:31 <niklasl> +1
17:48:33 <gkellogg> +1
17:48:34 <tl> +1
17:48:34 <ora> +1
17:48:34 <pchampin> +1
17:48:35 <ktk> +1
17:48:37 <enrico> +1
17:48:37 <pfps> +1
17:48:39 <olaf> +1
17:48:39 <Dominik_T> +1
17:48:40 <doerthe> AndyS: the subject could be open, when talking about it, we will need to choose the word according to the context, of course we need to choose something in the spec, but that can vary
17:48:40 <TallTed> +1
17:48:46 <doerthe> +0
17:48:47 <eBremer> +1
17:48:47 <AZ> +0
17:48:52 <AndyS> +1 (not exclusively)
17:48:57 <gtw> +1
17:49:04 <Souri> +1 to reifies (and use "edge" or "edge-set" as one way of calling it in the spec)
17:49:26 <fsasaki> +0
17:50:14 <ktk> q?
17:50:15 <doerthe> ora: reifies seems to be the working candidate
17:50:22 <ktk> q+
17:50:32 <ora> ack ktk
17:50:37 <doerthe> ... explanations can be crafted, we can use different subjects
17:51:19 <doerthe> ktk: The people who wanted to explain the idea in their context, could these please share that for example on the mailing list
17:51:21 <enrico> q+
17:51:28 <ora> ack enrico
17:51:45 <olaf> +1 to triple term
17:51:46 <doerthe> enrico: Is everybody happy with "triple term"?
17:51:51 <Souri> I am okay with triple-term
17:51:58 <pchampin> +1 to triple-term
17:52:31 <doerthe> gkellogg: I like that it is term as opposed to for example literals
17:52:37 <pchampin> q+
17:52:47 <ora> ack pchampin
17:53:04 <AndyS> +1 to triple term
17:53:25 <tl> +1 to triple term
17:53:53 <doerthe> pchampin: I think it would be important to write some kind of disclaimer about reification in our documents making the point that it differs from "classical" RDF reification and that reification is far more then this classical one
17:54:24 <doerthe> ... we basically introduce a "new reification" and reification is used in many contexts
17:55:13 <doerthe> ora:  Who takes care of the w3c breakout-day?
17:55:13 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:55:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:55:21 <doerthe> ... I will
17:55:44 <niklasl> +1 these "occurrences" (statements, edges, graphs, claims, events, etc.) all reify triple terms.
17:55:44 <Souri> When is the W3C breakout day? (I joined late)
17:56:35 <TallTed> Souri -- Tuesday, 12 March 2024. see https://github.com/w3c/breakouts-day-2024
17:56:45 <gtw> Can somebody link me to the use-cases document? I can't remember where they are, and didn't quickly find it looking at github.
17:56:46 <Souri> thanks
17:57:04 <eBremer> eBremer has left #rdf-star
17:57:49 <TallTed> gtw -- https://w3c.github.io/rdf-ucr/ and https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/
17:58:17 <niklasl> gtw -- I *think
17:58:18 <gtw> thanks, TallTed! Forgot that it wasn't named with "star"
17:58:35 <niklasl> I *think* https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/wiki/Summary is the latest status
17:59:47 <niklasl> Note that this was before the syntax revision to macros for occurrences
18:00:56 <niklasl>  (which we did because that works for use cases, which otherwise needed the sand-off relationship (now rdf:reifies) spelled out)
18:01:19 <niklasl> (*stand-off*)
18:08:32 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
18:20:50 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:43:50 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:47:00 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:47:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
18:47:13 <TallTed> Zakim, end meeting
18:47:13 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been gtw, ora, AndyS, TallTed, doerthe, Dominik_T, pfps, gkellogg, draggett, olaf, niklasl, Souri, tl, ktk, pchampin, AZ, fsasaki, enrico,
18:47:16 <Zakim> ... eBremer
18:47:16 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:47:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim
18:47:53 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, TallTed; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:47:53 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
18:47:53 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
18:47:53 <RRSAgent> I see no action items