IRC log of rdf-star on 2024-05-16
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:55:51 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
- 15:55:55 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/05/16-rdf-star-irc
- 15:55:55 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, make logs Public
- 15:55:56 [Zakim]
- please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
- 15:56:02 [pchampin]
- meeting: RDF-star Working Group focused meeting
- 15:56:48 [pchampin]
- agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0a6aa6e3-635c-42c2-baba-938c76b6ef01/20240516T120000/#agenda
- 15:56:48 [agendabot]
- clear agenda
- 15:56:48 [agendabot]
- agenda+ Feedback KG Conference
- 15:56:48 [agendabot]
- agenda+ Discuss Profiles -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-profile-%22transparent%22 -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-profile-%22functional-opaque%22 and possibly Singleton Properties -> 3 https://www.w3.org/2024/05/02-rdf-star-minutes.html#t08
- 15:57:18 [pchampin]
- pchampin has changed the topic to: RDF-start WG Focused Meeting - 2024-05-16 -- https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0a6aa6e3-635c-42c2-baba-938c76b6ef01/20240516T120000/
- 15:57:24 [eBremer]
- eBremer has joined #rdf-star
- 15:57:33 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 15:58:37 [enrico]
- enrico has joined #rdf-star
- 15:59:52 [pchampin]
- scribe+
- 15:59:58 [gkellogg]
- present+
- 16:00:01 [pchampin]
- present+
- 16:00:02 [ora]
- ora has joined #rdf-star
- 16:00:04 [thomas]
- thomas has joined #rdf-star
- 16:00:10 [pfps]
- pfps has joined #rdf-star
- 16:00:14 [ktk]
- p+
- 16:00:25 [pfps]
- present+
- 16:00:27 [thomas]
- present+
- 16:00:30 [gtw]
- present+
- 16:00:41 [niklasl]
- niklasl has joined #rdf-star
- 16:00:43 [ora]
- present+
- 16:00:49 [ora]
- chair: ora
- 16:01:10 [eBremer]
- present+
- 16:01:11 [gkellogg]
- rrsagent, generate minutes
- 16:01:13 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/16-rdf-star-minutes.html gkellogg
- 16:01:20 [AZ]
- present+
- 16:01:24 [olaf]
- olaf has joined #rdf-star
- 16:01:26 [niklasl]
- present+
- 16:01:54 [TallTed]
- TallTed has joined #rdf-star
- 16:02:18 [AndyS]
- AndyS has joined #rdf-star
- 16:02:27 [AndyS]
- present+
- 16:02:57 [pchampin]
- topic: report of the Knowledge Graph Conference
- 16:02:57 [ktk]
- Zakim, open item 1
- 16:02:57 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 -- Feedback KG Conference -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 16:03:12 [pchampin]
- ora: the KGC keeps improving.
- 16:03:21 [pchampin]
- ... There was a panel on graph standards.
- 16:03:43 [pchampin]
- ... I gave a short overview of what's going on in our WG. There seemed to be a lot of interest in that.
- 16:03:49 [olaf]
- present+
- 16:04:02 [pchampin]
- ... There was also a lot of interest in RDF-LDP alignment.
- 16:04:13 [gtw]
- s/LDP/LPG/
- 16:04:17 [pchampin]
- ... People expressed interest in reasoning for LPG, shapes for LPG.
- 16:04:39 [pchampin]
- ... Another topic was the use of LLMs wth KGs.
- 16:04:53 [pchampin]
- ... Souri, you were here as well. Anything to add?
- 16:05:04 [Dominik_T]
- Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
- 16:05:11 [Dominik_T]
- present+
- 16:05:12 [TallTed]
- present+
- 16:05:14 [TallTed]
- Zakim, who's here?
- 16:05:14 [Zakim]
- Present: ktk, eBremer, rubensworks, fsasaki, tl, ora, niklasl, AndyS, TallTed, pfps, olaf, gtw, doerthe, Souri, Dominik_T, AZ, enrico, thomas, gkellogg, pchampin
- 16:05:16 [TallTed]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:05:17 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/16-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
- 16:05:23 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Dominik_T, AndyS, TallTed, olaf, niklasl, pfps, thomas, ora, enrico, gkellogg, eBremer, RRSAgent, AZ, rhiaro, Tpt, ktk, driib5, gb, Zakim, pchampin, csarven, gtw,
- 16:05:23 [Zakim]
- ... agendabot
- 16:05:33 [pchampin]
- Souri: Alister mentioned the simplicity of the LGP model (e.g. property values limited to scalars).
- 16:05:50 [gtw]
- s/LGP/LPG/
- 16:05:56 [TallTed]
- s/p+//
- 16:06:08 [pchampin]
- ... It is important that we provide a way to align RDF with LPGs. People who don't need it don't have to use it.
- 16:06:44 [pchampin]
- ora: we are definitely not working in a vacuum. People are observing and following.
- 16:07:06 [TallTed]
- previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/05/03-rdf-star-minutes.html
- 16:07:08 [TallTed]
- next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/05/17-rdf-star-minutes.html
- 16:07:09 [pchampin]
- ... Now the GQL is out -- provided you pay a few 100$ for access.
- 16:07:32 [pchampin]
- Zakim, open next agendum
- 16:07:32 [Zakim]
- I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, pchampin
- 16:07:32 [enrico]
- present+
- 16:07:39 [pchampin]
- q?
- 16:07:41 [enrico]
- q+
- 16:08:34 [pchampin]
- ack Souri
- 16:08:42 [Souri]
- Souri has joined #rdf-star
- 16:08:42 [pchampin]
- ack doe
- 16:08:45 [pchampin]
- ack enrico
- 16:08:47 [Souri]
- present+
- 16:08:48 [pchampin]
- Zakim, open next agendum
- 16:08:48 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 -- Discuss Profiles -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-profile-%22transparent%22 -> 2
- 16:08:50 [Zakim]
- ... https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-profile-%22functional-opaque%22 and possibly Singleton Properties -> 3 https://www.w3.org/2024/05/02-rdf-star-minutes.html#t08
- 16:08:50 [Zakim]
- ... -- taken up [from agendabot]
- 16:08:56 [doerthe]
- doerthe has joined #rdf-star
- 16:08:59 [gtw]
- q+
- 16:09:02 [doerthe]
- present+
- 16:09:12 [pchampin]
- enrico: to summarize the state of the "profile" business
- 16:09:21 [pchampin]
- ... we have two profiles with largely overlaping syntax.
- 16:09:32 [pchampin]
- ... implementers can decide to implement one, or the other, or both.
- 16:09:47 [enrico]
- https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF%E2%80%90star-examples-of-profiles
- 16:10:04 [Souri]
- q+
- 16:10:11 [pchampin]
- ... we need to decide if "both" is possible, and if so to decide on a syntactic marker to distinguish which is intended.
- 16:10:20 [pchampin]
- ... Niklas wrote a number of examples. (link above)
- 16:10:23 [ora]
- ack gtw
- 16:10:46 [pfps]
- q+
- 16:11:05 [enrico]
- q+
- 16:11:11 [pchampin]
- gtw: my understanding of the two profiles was in the use of different predicates.
- 16:11:16 [niklasl]
- (Enrico wrote the examples, I mostly reformatted.)
- 16:11:44 [pchampin]
- ... My concern is that the syntactic sugar is defined in a way that favors one of the profiles.
- 16:12:12 [pchampin]
- ... But looking at Enrico's examples, I am not sure. Both of them seem to use the same syntax.
- 16:12:40 [pchampin]
- enrico: the opaque triple terms have a quote around, but that's just a proposal. A nice one, in my opinion.
- 16:12:45 [niklasl]
- Another form thrown around uses <' s p o '> instead of <<'s p o'>>
- 16:12:55 [TallTed]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:12:56 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/16-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
- 16:13:02 [pchampin]
- ... it would be fine as it does not conflict with the IRI syntax.
- 16:13:38 [pchampin]
- ... I'm not too concerned about syntax.
- 16:13:45 [AndyS]
- q?
- 16:14:00 [pchampin]
- ... We are not concerned about the predicate, but about the ability to distinguish the opaque profile from the transparent profile.
- 16:14:21 [pchampin]
- gtw: do you see this as a possibility that implementors implement both?
- 16:14:44 [pchampin]
- enrico: I have no crystal ball, but I expect everyone would implement both. I don't see a reason to implement only one.
- 16:15:00 [ora]
- q+
- 16:15:03 [ora]
- ack Souri
- 16:15:09 [pchampin]
- gtw: it sounds like it would be possible to implement both; two predicates seems an important aspect of this design.
- 16:16:03 [pchampin]
- Souri: rdf:refies could be used in triple terms, like :a rdf:reifies << :b rdf::reifies << :c :d :e >> >> .
- 16:16:34 [pchampin]
- ... Is there any demand for being able to do that? My sense is that it would be very low.
- 16:16:55 [pchampin]
- ... If that is to be included in the standard, I would prefer it to be a SHOULD than a MUST.
- 16:17:13 [pchampin]
- ... Implementations would like to not support it for performance.
- 16:17:31 [ora]
- ack pfps
- 16:17:32 [pchampin]
- enrico: the current abstract syntax forbids it. We can change that, but I don't think it would make much sense.
- 16:17:45 [pchampin]
- pfps: a couple of points should be made.
- 16:18:08 [pchampin]
- ... 1. People talk of these as profiles, but they are different from OWL profiles (different proposals, vs. parts of a bigger language).
- 16:18:18 [niklasl]
- One example would be for reifying a data event where something other was reified.
- 16:18:37 [pchampin]
- ... 2. Transparent and opaque don't matter much with rdf:reifies. It tends to make transparent things behave much like opaque things.
- 16:18:41 [pchampin]
- ora: can you elaborate?
- 16:18:59 [pchampin]
- pfps: with a reifier, you don't get the kind of inferences you would get with a regular triple.
- 16:19:35 [pchampin]
- ... With transparency, if two triples have the same denotation, you can mix and match their components.
- 16:19:47 [pchampin]
- ... But this does not apply to reifiers.
- 16:19:52 [eBremer]
- eBremer has joined #rdf-star
- 16:20:07 [ora]
- ack enrico
- 16:20:12 [ora]
- ack ora
- 16:20:17 [pchampin]
- enrico: that's fine. Different reifiers of the same triple can denote different things (a triple, an event).
- 16:20:19 [doerthe]
- q+
- 16:20:21 [eBremer]
- present+
- 16:20:38 [pchampin]
- ora: a question, just to clarify:
- 16:21:03 [pchampin]
- ... in enrico's definition, a tuple with rdf:reifies in the predicate position is not defined as a triple, right?
- 16:21:08 [pchampin]
- enrico: yes
- 16:21:27 [pchampin]
- ora: in a SPARQL query, are those tuples invisible to SPARQL triple patterns?
- 16:22:06 [pchampin]
- enrico: you can consider that we have two kinds of triples: legacy-triples, and reifies-triples. But they are all triples.
- 16:22:20 [pchampin]
- ... But all should be visible to SPARQL.
- 16:23:09 [pchampin]
- ora: I started wondering whether the association between the reifier and the triple term is really part of the graph, or if this is merely part of our book-keeping.
- 16:23:37 [pchampin]
- q+
- 16:23:39 [thomas]
- q+
- 16:24:02 [ora]
- ack doerthe
- 16:24:21 [pchampin]
- enrico: if we want to exclude reifies-triples, then they are more like "declarations", but there were arguments against separating declarations from statements.
- 16:25:05 [pchampin]
- doerthe: we got here (transparent / opaque profile) because we wanted to avoid having a reifier reifying multiple triples.
- 16:25:32 [pchampin]
- ... ora, as you were concerned about this, would the opaque profile address your profile?
- 16:25:47 [enrico]
- q+
- 16:25:50 [pchampin]
- ora: I do believe it helps us.
- 16:26:19 [niklasl]
- My impression has been that the transparency version does not work with LPGs due to it's many-to-many nature; but that the distinct opaque version makes it clearer "a priori" which graphs are "LPG-compliant"?
- 16:26:39 [pchampin]
- ... I'm extremely happy that the WG has indulged us in this regard.
- 16:26:56 [pchampin]
- ... I understand both sides of the argument. The way I look at it there are multiple dimensions to it.
- 16:27:06 [ora]
- ack pchampin
- 16:28:17 [Souri]
- q+
- 16:28:27 [ora]
- ack Souri
- 16:28:30 [pchampin]
- pchampin: what are we trying to achieve by preventing reifies-triples from being triple terms?
- 16:28:53 [pchampin]
- ... Granted this is a corner case, but I would prefer a more regular model.
- 16:29:29 [pchampin]
- Souri: yes, for completeness, we may want to allow it, but in practice people would not need that.
- 16:29:50 [pchampin]
- ... From an implementation point of view, I would make it more difficult for us to support that.
- 16:30:05 [gtw]
- +1 on this being an issue for efficient implementation
- 16:30:20 [pchampin]
- ... I'm not saying it should not be part of the standard, but if it is, the standard should allow vendors like us to not implement it.
- 16:30:37 [pchampin]
- q+
- 16:30:37 [AndyS]
- q+
- 16:30:44 [ora]
- ack thomas
- 16:30:50 [fsasaki]
- fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
- 16:30:54 [pchampin]
- ora: I can't even think of a use-case for those.
- 16:30:58 [fsasaki]
- regrets+
- 16:31:16 [gtw]
- obvious use case would be data provenance: "when did Ora insert this rdf:reifies triple?"
- 16:31:21 [ora]
- ack enrico
- 16:31:25 [pchampin]
- thomas: why not get rid of the abstract triple term as well, and define 4 elements in a triple (s p o id)?
- 16:32:06 [pchampin]
- enrico: you still need to define the relation between the triple term and the id.
- 16:32:16 [Souri]
- q+
- 16:32:28 [pchampin]
- thomas: then we need two kinds of quads. So what?
- 16:33:02 [pchampin]
- enrico: I read a lot of LinkedIn posts on this topic. You can see two camps: those who want transparent, and those who want opaque.
- 16:33:05 [pchampin]
- ... So we need both.
- 16:34:00 [ora]
- ack pchampin
- 16:34:37 [pchampin]
- ... I wanted to give an example of how we can encode LPG in RDF, making them richer.
- 16:35:10 [pchampin]
- s/an example/examples/
- 16:35:46 [niklasl]
- Very much a corner case, but e.g.: <record/version-2> rdf:reifies <<( <publication> rdf:reifies <<( <book> :publisher <org> )>> )>> . # in version 1 the <publication> "reifier" just reified another triple (the publishedAt date).
- 16:35:59 [ora]
- ack AndyS
- 16:36:01 [enrico]
- q+
- 16:36:32 [pchampin]
- pchampin: I don't have a use case for reifying reifies-triples, but I am concerned that ensuring this restriction will be a hassle
- 16:37:11 [pchampin]
- ... You would need to check every triple before turning it into a triple-term.
- 16:37:24 [pchampin]
- AndyS: To add to that: this would happen quickly with SPARQL CONSTRUCT.
- 16:37:50 [pchampin]
- ... With variable you need to check it at runtime. It would create runtime errors, which would create usability problems.
- 16:37:51 [pchampin]
- q+
- 16:38:10 [enrico]
- enrico has joined #rdf-star
- 16:38:15 [enrico]
- present+
- 16:38:39 [pchampin]
- ora: is this an argument for letting all flowers bloom, or for turning them into declarations?
- 16:38:49 [pchampin]
- AndyS: I don't know how it would look as a declaration.
- 16:38:52 [ora]
- ack Souri
- 16:39:25 [pchampin]
- Souri: reacting to what Thomas said about having 4 terms.
- 16:39:31 [AndyS]
- Also - rdf:refies in property paths
- 16:40:29 [ora]
- ack enrico
- 16:40:31 [pchampin]
- ... I'm ok with having rdf:reifies. But if we wanted 4 components, there would be a way to distinguish opaque vs. transparent.
- 16:40:44 [pchampin]
- ... But I'm not pushing for the 4-components solutions.
- 16:41:21 [pchampin]
- enrico: if we used declarations instead of reifies-triples, we would be unable to query this.
- 16:41:32 [pchampin]
- ... That's why at this point I don't think we should go for declarations.
- 16:43:01 [pchampin]
- ... I suspect the regularity would not create too much implementation problems, but that's not my field.
- 16:43:09 [ora]
- ack pchampin
- 16:43:11 [niklasl]
- (this would be named triples)
- 16:44:17 [enrico]
- :-)
- 16:44:46 [pchampin]
- pchampin: to AndyS' point about irregularity: we already have that with literals as subject with SPARQL CONSTRUCT
- 16:45:07 [pchampin]
- ... we are ignoring it. Could we do the same with rdf:reifies in triple terms?
- 16:45:12 [Souri]
- q+
- 16:45:19 [ora]
- ack Souri
- 16:45:24 [pchampin]
- ... (playing the devil's advocate, I prefer regularity :->)
- 16:45:28 [pchampin]
- AndyS: this would be more confusing
- 16:45:58 [pchampin]
- Souri: and a SPARQL CONSTRUCT could end up putting triple-terms in the subject position
- 16:46:06 [pchampin]
- AndyS: yes, or bnodes in predicate position
- 16:47:05 [niklasl]
- q+
- 16:47:37 [pchampin]
- Souri: to pchampin's point, we could handle rdf:reifies in triple terms like we are currently treating those other irregularities
- 16:47:37 [ora]
- ack niklasl
- 16:47:54 [pchampin]
- niklasl: question about the LPG case and transparency.
- 16:48:16 [enrico]
- q+
- 16:48:21 [pchampin]
- ... If you migrate an LPG to RDF, you will and up with a lot of opaque stuff that you might not want to be opaque.
- 16:48:36 [ora]
- ack enrico
- 16:49:12 [pchampin]
- ... It seems to me that the opaque profile came from the need to restrict the cardinality of rdf:reifies, not from a wish from LPG people to have only opaque.
- 16:49:33 [ora]
- q+
- 16:49:40 [pchampin]
- enrico: cf. pchampin's counter-example with symmetric properties and transparent triple-terms.
- 16:50:05 [pchampin]
- ... We need opaque for a one-to-one correspondance.
- 16:50:35 [pchampin]
- q+
- 16:50:39 [ora]
- ack ora
- 16:50:47 [pchampin]
- ... If we want to talk about what these things mean (which LPGs don't do at all), you expand with transparent triple-terms.
- 16:50:56 [niklasl]
- q+
- 16:51:12 [pchampin]
- ora: that's a good point. In many ways, LPG people (if there is such a group) don't understand when we talk about semantics.
- 16:51:24 [pchampin]
- ... For them the semantics is only in their head.
- 16:52:45 [pchampin]
- enrico: there is a Property Graph Schema Language WG
- 16:53:01 [pchampin]
- ... apparently, they consider that once a PG has a schema, they can reason with it.
- 16:53:18 [pchampin]
- ora: this is a new thing for their group.
- 16:53:26 [ora]
- ack pchampin
- 16:55:26 [pchampin]
- ... The have use-cases for validating PGs, which is a valid.
- 16:55:44 [ora]
- ack niklasl
- 16:55:53 [pchampin]
- pchampin: my belief is that a one-size-fit-all tansformation will never be entirely satisfying.
- 16:56:13 [pchampin]
- ... more accurate transformation will require a kind of "context", similiar to JSON-LD.
- 16:56:22 [thomas]
- q+
- 16:56:51 [pchampin]
- niklasl: we seem to represent the lack of known semantics with opaque triples.
- 16:57:08 [pchampin]
- ...any syntax suffers from this lack, unless they are designed as concrete syntaxes for RDF.
- 16:57:54 [pchampin]
- ... If you have to edit your data once you realize you needed RDF, to change triple-terms from opaque to transparent, that might be an issue.
- 16:57:58 [thomas]
- q-
- 16:58:47 [pchampin]
- ora: we are over-time, sorry thomas, we could not talk about singleton properties
- 16:58:54 [pchampin]
- ... thanks everyone, good conversation. See you next week.
- 16:59:08 [pchampin]
- enrico: there will be a Semantics TF meeting tomorrow.
- 16:59:18 [pchampin]
- RRSAgent, make minutes
- 16:59:20 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/16-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
- 16:59:52 [pchampin]
- s/topic: report of the Knowledge Graph Conference/
- 16:59:55 [pchampin]
- RRSAgent, make minutes
- 16:59:56 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/16-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
- 17:03:23 [pchampin]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 17:03:23 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items