– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

<AndyS> I just added the bots so earlier "present+" won't have been seen

<TallTed> code fences are helpful, even in IRC. (triple backtick on a line by itself, before and after, below. see the pretty minutes, to see the full effect.)

<TallTed> :e rdf:reifies <<( :s1 :p1 :o1 )>> .

<TallTed> :e rdf:reifies <<( :s2 :p2 :o2 )>> .

<TallTed> ASK WHERE { _:x rdf:reifies <<( :s1 _:y :o2 )>> } ==> TRUE

<TallTed> enrico:

<TallTed> :w1 rdf:reifies <<( :liz : married :richard )>> .

<TallTed> :w1 :location :miami .

<TallTed> :w2 rdf:reifies <<( :liz : married :richard )>> .

<TallTed> :w2  :location :las-vegas .

<TallTed> :w1 rdf:reifies <<( :liz :married-in :las-vegas )>> .

<TallTed> :w1 :groom :richard .

<TallTed> :w2 rdf:reifies <<( :liz :married-in :miami )>> .

<TallTed> :w2 :groom :richard .

<niklasl> A reification (here, "reifier") is some kind of concretization; more "real" ("detailed") than the simple triple (which has to be reified when proven too abstract).

<TallTed> +1000, http-range-14

<enrico> :wedding rdf:type :wedding .

<niklasl> +1, a type for the subject (here, the "reifier") helps *a lot*.

<enrico> :w1 rdf:type :wedding .

<niklasl> :w1 a :Wedding; rdf:reifies <<( :liz :married-in :las-vegas )>> .

<niklasl> :t1 a :TripleToken; rdf:reifies <<( :liz :married-in :las-vegas )>> .

<niklasl> :c1 a :WeddingCertificate; rdf:reifies <<( :liz :married-in :las-vegas )>> .

<Souri> ```:w1 rdf:reifies <<( :liz :married :richard )>> ; a rdf:EVent .

<TallTed> :e#reifier rdf:reifies <<( :s1 :p1 :o1 )>> .

<TallTed> :e#reifier rdf:reifies <<( :s2 :p2 :o2 )>> .

<TallTed> ASK WHERE { _:x rdf:reifies <<( :s1 _:y :o2 )>> } ==> TRUE

<enrico> :t1 a :TripleToken; rdf:reifies <<( :liz :married-in :las-vegas )>> .

<enrico> :c1 a :WeddingCertificate; rdf:reifies <<( :liz :married-in :las-vegas )>> .

<enrico> :w1 a :Wedding; rdf:reifies <<( :liz :married-in :las-vegas )>> .

<enrico> :w1 :location :miami .

<enrico> :w1 :groom :richard .

<enrico> :w1 :bride :liz .

<Souri> :w1R rdf:reifies <<( :liz :married :richard )>> ; a rdf:Reifier .

<enrico> :w1 rdf:reifies <<( :liz : married :richard )>> .

<niklasl> HttpRange-14 is more about what 200 OK means than what e.g. Frege meant with sense and reference (but there is relationship of course). In no way does <x> denote different things in the same RDF Graph. If <x> is supposed to denote a work of art and dereferencing it responds 200 OK, HTTP states that you are served a representation (encoding) of

<niklasl> that information resource. If the web page is licenced as CC-BY and the work of art is not, there is a conflation of identity with legal consequences.

<tl> +1 to enrico's/niklas' solution above. of course, creating two different reifiers - one to talk about the triple, another to talk about what the triple is about - solves the problem.

<niklasl> The *real* problem is the notion of *identity*.

<niklasl> We clarify ("approach a fixation") of an identity (the thing denoted) by describing it. Eventually (in theory) it is crystal clear and objectively unambiguous, *or* a paradox occurs (through an inconsistency/contradiction). In practice, we mostly just strive to avoid paradoxes (using OWL, SHACL, etc.). Using only as many

<niklasl> "energy-efficient/-conservative" simple statements as needed for our use cases (hopefully enough understood to hold within the application over time).

<niklasl> A while ago I tried to start a "motivating example" here: https://hackmd.io/@niklasl/HJ3IudCdp I'd love to collaborate more on this.

<niklasl> We agreed, yesterday, to close the issue about allowing triple terms as subjects: w3c/rdf-concepts#80

<gb> CLOSED Issue 80 where are triple terms allowed (by pfps) [spec:substantive]

<AndyS> My understanding was that we encourage talking about the occurrence - and through the occurrence, talk about the triple. This indirection keeps statements apart - the opening hours example.

<TallTed> this discussion suggests we might yet want to revisit that (preliminary) decision...

<niklasl> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/wiki/RDF-Star-for-Talking-About-Multiple-Triples-at-Once

<TallTed> Turtles, all the way down... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

<niklasl> As Andy says, we need to make it clear that we generalize reification, and concretely show why, and how to put it to good use.

<Souri> Is a triple-term just a representation of a triple OR a binary relationship between the subject and object in the triple-term. Can be both, IMO, and will depend on how one wants to model their data. If mixed use is needed, they can use separate reifiers for the same triple-term.