13:39:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
13:39:59 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/04/26-rdf-star-irc
13:39:59 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-star
13:41:47 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-star WG Semantics TF
13:41:48 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:41:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
13:41:51 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:47:24 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/05/02-rdf-star-minutes.html
13:47:25 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/04/25-rdf-star-minutes.html
13:56:34 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
13:59:08 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
13:59:48 <TallTed> scribe: ?scribe?
13:59:49 <TallTed> chair: ?chair?
13:59:49 <TallTed> topic: Continuing the discussion on profiles
13:59:54 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:59:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:00:38 <TallTed> present+
14:01:20 <TallTed> present+ AndyS, enrico, niklasl, tl
14:01:42 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
14:02:03 <TallTed> present+ ora
14:02:03 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
14:03:14 <tl> present+
14:03:34 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
14:04:51 <niklasl> present+
14:05:40 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
14:05:41 <AndyS> present+
14:05:46 <enrico> present+
14:05:51 <enrico> q?
14:06:00 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:06:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:06:13 <niklasl> q+
14:06:33 <enrico> q+
14:06:51 <ora> ack niklasl
14:07:09 <AndyS> q+
14:07:22 <TallTed> s/?chair?/ora
14:07:22 <TallTed> s/?scribe?/ad-hoc
14:09:47 <ora> q+
14:09:51 <tl> q+
14:10:12 <ora> ack enrico
14:12:40 <ora> ack AndyS
14:12:57 <niklasl> Opaque edges _without bnodes (to eliminate also the need for skolemization) for the LPG cases....
14:13:26 <TallTed> rdf:edge, another special predicate
14:13:53 <niklasl> So we would support both? In syntax? I don't *like* it, but I can _see_ it...
14:14:56 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
14:15:27 <niklasl> q+
14:16:52 <ora> ack ora
14:19:34 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
14:20:01 <TallTed> present+ doerthe
14:23:55 <AndyS> q?
14:24:17 <ora> ack tl
14:24:49 <enrico> q+
14:28:11 <enrico> q?
14:30:30 <niklasl> Use the D-entailment example instead "042"^^xsd:int
14:31:20 <AndyS> D-entailment is little unusual - numbers are "universal"
14:31:25 <ora> q+
14:31:33 <doerthe> q+
14:31:45 <ora> ack niklasl
14:31:55 <niklasl> Yes. Use no uniqueness assumption...
14:36:18 <ora> ack enrico
14:36:27 <ora> q-
14:37:42 <niklasl> Look at the types in my examples: https://niklasl.github.io/ldtr/demo/?url=../test/data/reifiers-misc-m2m.trig  (no Wedding, since we've had that a lot).
14:38:04 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
14:38:20 <Souri> present+
14:39:41 <TallTed> present+ pfps
14:39:57 <TallTed> q?
14:40:00 <TallTed> q+
14:40:01 <niklasl> .. follow your nose (and if you cannot, the data isn't properly published; or used in "good faith"  (ex:ExampleStuff))
14:42:25 <niklasl> LPGs uses ambiguity as their formal semantics (like most humans, I guess)
14:45:13 <tl> q+
14:45:53 <ora> ack doerthe
14:47:19 <niklasl> No uniqueness assumption...
14:48:39 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
14:49:32 <ora> ack TallTed
14:51:44 <niklasl> The only "completely described" resources are literals, and triple (terms)...
14:52:45 <niklasl> An exdurant notion of persons come to mind...
14:52:52 <ora> q+
14:55:19 <ora> ack tl
14:55:25 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
14:56:24 <niklasl> owl:sameAs or other entailments (FP, IFP, restrictions, ....)
14:56:38 <ora> q-
14:57:05 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
14:57:16 <doerthe> present+
14:57:33 <niklasl> _:e1  rdf:value "<urn:x-ns:s> <urn:x-ns:p> <urn:x-ns:o>"^^ex:tripleLiteral .
14:58:24 <doerthe> the opacity mainly had a problem with literals
14:59:35 <niklasl> A "TP" would some kind of an implicit property chain from the edge to the (if so defined) entailed rdf:Triple resource that the literal would denote? Pretty hard to comprehend and work with.
14:59:53 <ora> q?
15:00:15 <niklasl> q+
15:00:53 <enrico> q+
15:01:19 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
15:01:26 <fsasaki> regrets+
15:01:57 <doerthe> The point is, that you still have some syntactical restriction in the transparency case and that I always considered a problem, but I can live with that. I just want that to be clear
15:03:23 <ora> ack niklasl
15:04:09 <doerthe> so even if :liz :married :richard. and :richard :married :liz. are semantically equivalent, the semantics at the moment do not take care of that (and that is good, this complexity was main main fear for transparency)
15:05:21 <doerthe> can you share the link again, I got disconnected?
15:07:25 <tl> doerthe I accept that there are problems w.r.t. symmetric properties, that example may be too far fetched. but co-denotation - :Liz and :ElizabetTaylor referring to the same person - should be a strong enough argument
15:09:41 <ora> ack enrico
15:10:52 <ora> q+
15:12:49 <doerthe> basically, the <<..>>-brackets are interpreted as a ternary function symbol, not more and not less.  To me, it felt artificial to do that, but I see that ternary functions can be powerful if we want them to.
15:13:10 <ora> "I love you as a brother"
15:14:10 <niklasl> "and also as a friend" two subproperties should be used, *or* an auxiliary reifier of the particular situations
15:14:48 <doerthe> ... if it is all about n-ary relations, then we might want to make lists first-class citizens
15:15:02 <doerthe> instead ;)
15:15:12 <TallTed> q+
15:15:12 <ora> ack ora
15:15:16 <tl> q+
15:15:34 <doerthe> q+
15:15:53 <niklasl> q+
15:16:21 <ora> ack TallTed
15:17:54 <niklasl> That's what I tried to illustrate in my examples -- most of them are "oh, you should have modeled it like that up front" cases!
15:18:03 <enrico> q+
15:20:26 <ora> ack tl
15:21:56 <ora> ack doerthe
15:22:47 <niklasl> We need two predicates and two types.
15:22:48 <ora> ack enrico
15:23:19 <niklasl> (one is a datatype, one is the class (Triple, or Statement, *really*)
15:25:56 <ora> ack niklasl
15:26:30 <enrico> q+
15:27:45 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
15:30:10 <ora> ack enrico
15:30:13 <ora> chair-
15:32:27 <niklasl> We also have lots of "80% of the data is simple, 20% needs underlying details".
15:32:30 <tl> we could go for an RDF/LPG reasoning regime - completely opaque, Unique Name Assumption, Closed World Assumption etc - that can be applied to a named graph. that way we would give LPG users _everything_ the expect
15:34:10 <tl> q?
15:34:19 <tl> q+
15:35:48 <enrico> q+
15:35:53 <enrico> ack tl
15:41:57 <enrico> ack enrico
15:43:24 <enrico> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF%E2%80%90star-semantics:-option-3
15:43:36 <AndyS> <<:e | :s :p :o >> :p 12 . :e  :p 23 . vs  :e :p 12 . <<:e| :s :p:o>>  :p 23 .    for { ?s ?p ?o . FILTER(SUBJECT(?s) ...) }
15:44:21 <AndyS> IF there is an explicit declaration, to separate declaration and use, it *may* be possible.
15:46:54 <doerthe> :s :p <<:i\:a :b :c>>. :s2 :p2 :i. I search for SELECT * where {?s ? p <<?i/:a :b :c>>.} what do I get?
15:47:53 <doerthe> (sorry for the / and \ :) )
15:48:25 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:48:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:48:45 <TallTed> Zakim, bye
15:48:45 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been TallTed, AndyS, enrico, niklasl, tl, ora, doerthe, Souri, pfps
15:48:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
15:48:54 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
15:48:54 <RRSAgent> I see no action items