IRC log of rdf-star on 2024-06-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:12:48 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
00:35:13 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
00:54:07 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
01:13:17 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
01:30:35 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
01:55:37 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
02:04:08 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
02:26:52 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
02:36:33 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
02:56:55 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
03:32:02 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
03:56:22 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
04:14:46 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
04:34:47 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
04:56:53 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
05:17:15 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
05:35:49 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
06:00:24 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
06:17:50 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
06:25:20 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
06:32:51 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
07:06:05 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
07:24:38 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
07:43:59 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
08:07:41 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
08:30:27 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
08:48:47 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
09:45:35 [driib5]
driib5 has joined #rdf-star
10:05:17 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
10:24:29 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
10:44:29 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
11:04:51 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
11:21:28 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
11:38:08 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
12:01:26 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
12:20:44 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
12:39:02 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
13:00:17 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
13:30:02 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
13:44:11 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
13:55:58 [TallTed]
TallTed has joined #rdf-star
13:58:04 [TallTed]
Zakim, bye
13:58:04 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees have been ktk, TallTed, gtw, gkellogg, niklasl, AZ, pchampin, tl, pfps, eBremer, enrico, Souri, AndyS, doerthe, Dominik_T
13:58:04 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-star
13:58:14 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, bye
13:58:14 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
13:59:20 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
13:59:20 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/06/07-rdf-star-irc
13:59:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-star
13:59:32 [TallTed]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:59:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
13:59:35 [TallTed]
rrsagent, set logs public
14:01:00 [TallTed]
meeting: RDF-star Semantics TF
14:01:02 [TallTed]
previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/06/06-rdf-star-minutes.html
14:01:04 [TallTed]
next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/06/13-rdf-star-minutes.html
14:01:06 [TallTed]
scribe: ?scribe?
14:01:08 [TallTed]
chair: ?chair?
14:01:14 [niklasl]
niklasl has joined #rdf-star
14:01:43 [TallTed]
present+ TallTed, niklasl, pchampin, enrico
14:01:50 [TallTed]
present+ Souri
14:01:56 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:01:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:02:52 [TallTed]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20230526T100000/
14:02:53 [agendabot]
TallTed, sorry, I did not recognize any agenda in https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20230526T100000/
14:03:10 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
14:03:22 [TallTed]
agenda+ Resuming discussions on basic elements of semantics definitions
14:03:22 [TallTed]
agenda+ Analysis of the new proposals by pfps
14:03:39 [gkellogg]
present+
14:04:01 [tl]
tl has joined #rdf-star
14:04:02 [TallTed]
agenda: clear
14:04:05 [agendabot]
TallTed, sorry, could not get clear (code 400).
14:04:15 [TallTed]
clear agenda
14:04:28 [TallTed]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20240607T100000/
14:04:29 [agendabot]
TallTed, sorry, I did not recognize any agenda in https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20240607T100000/
14:04:46 [TallTed]
s|agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20230526T100000/||
14:04:54 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:04:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:05:25 [TallTed]
s/agenda: clear//
14:06:16 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-star
14:06:17 [TallTed]
present+ tl, pfps, AndyS
14:06:26 [TallTed]
Zakim, who's here?
14:06:27 [Zakim]
Present: TallTed, niklasl, pchampin, enrico, Souri, gkellogg, tl, pfps, AndyS
14:06:28 [Zakim]
On IRC I see AndyS, tl, gkellogg, niklasl, Zakim, RRSAgent, TallTed, driib5, agendabot, csarven, ktk, rhiaro, Tpt, gb, pchampin, gtw
14:06:54 [niklasl]
present+
14:07:17 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-star
14:07:30 [Souri]
present+
14:13:04 [niklasl]
Are we clear about when we talk about bnode symbols in a graph and when we talk about bnode labels in an RDF source?
14:13:30 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:13:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:13:38 [AndyS]
q+
14:14:15 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
14:15:48 [niklasl]
q+
14:15:51 [pchampin]
q+
14:15:54 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
14:16:01 [pchampin]
ack niklasl
14:18:10 [enrico]
enrico has joined #rdf-star
14:18:14 [enrico]
present+
14:21:02 [niklasl]
niklasl has joined #rdf-star
14:21:09 [niklasl]
present+
14:21:13 [niklasl]
CDT: https://awslabs.github.io/SPARQL-CDTs/spec/latest.html
14:23:00 [Souri]
Are the two references to _:b1 in the following example denote the same bnode? ==> _:b1 :p1 :o1 . :r1 rdf:annotationOf <<(' _:b1 :p2 :o2 ')>> .
14:23:57 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rdf-star
14:24:05 [TallTed]
q+
14:24:10 [niklasl]
We don't know yet. If completely opaque; then no.
14:24:15 [pchampin]
ack pchampin
14:25:03 [pchampin]
_:b :smurfs :t.
14:25:04 [pchampin]
_c :smurfs :t.
14:25:04 [pchampin]
:t rdf:annotationOf <<' :alice :likes _:b '>>.
14:25:28 [TallTed]
s/_c :smurfs :t./_:c :smurfs :t./
14:27:03 [AndyS]
q+
14:28:28 [AndyS]
Add _:c rdfs:label "fred" .
14:29:45 [AndyS]
ack TallTed
14:29:59 [niklasl]
:t ex:ref _:b . # ?
14:31:04 [niklasl]
q+
14:31:29 [enrico]
I agree that the current semantics of opaque triple terms leads to this confusion.
14:31:54 [enrico]
So, we should conclude that we need that bnodes are transparent within opaque triple terms
14:32:11 [niklasl]
+1 to TallTed!
14:32:22 [enrico]
+1 to TallTed!
14:33:54 [AndyS]
ack AndyS
14:34:02 [pchampin]
ack niklasl
14:34:33 [AndyS]
q+
14:34:53 [AndyS]
q-
14:36:30 [pchampin]
q+
14:36:35 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-star
14:36:40 [Souri]
present+
14:37:12 [AndyS]
q+
14:40:11 [Souri]
Would this set of annotations constitute a two-edge multi-edge (set of two parallel edges)? => :r1 rdf:annotationOf <<' _:b1 :p :o '>> . :r2 rdf:annotationOf <<' _:b1 :p :o '>> .
14:41:40 [AndyS]
Yes (I hope!) - old speak "two occurrences, two uses of the concept of the triple _:b1 :p :o."
14:43:37 [Souri]
I hope so too because that is the only way we can have multi-edge where parallel edges can use blank node(s) as subject and/or object.
14:43:44 [niklasl]
q+
14:43:56 [AndyS]
ack pchampin
14:45:14 [enrico]
q+
14:45:27 [niklasl]
... require triple literals, when fully written out, to use skolemized forms?
14:46:10 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
14:46:10 [AndyS]
ack AndyS
14:47:48 [TallTed]
quoting is different from paraphrasing
14:48:02 [pchampin]
but then if they used bnodes, you can't possibly use the same "word" that they used
14:48:03 [pfps]
q+
14:49:48 [Souri]
Just to confirm: Can this be used to represent a path from alice to bob with annotated edges? => :r1 rdf:annotationOf <<' :alice :knows _:b '>> . :r2 rdf:annotationOf <<' _:b :knows :bob '>> . :r1 :linkNum 1 ; :cost 100 . :r2 :linkNum 2 ; :cost 200 .
14:50:32 [pchampin]
ack niklasl
14:50:42 [TallTed]
q+ to remind that we haven't really built Use Cases & Requirements, so we still cannot evaluate well whether any proposal satisfies more or fewer requirements (and which differ) than any other proposal
14:50:50 [AndyS]
souri - not quite sure what your asking here - add yourself to queue??
14:51:31 [Souri]
q+
14:52:54 [pchampin]
ack enrico
14:54:10 [pfps]
When did opaque triple terms even get into the "requirements"?
14:54:40 [TallTed]
Need to be explicit about what is meant by "opaque triple term" if we're going to talk about whether they're a requirement.
14:54:53 [AndyS]
Hard opaque and soft opaque
14:55:14 [tl]
@pfps to provide a not-many-to-many option to AWS
14:55:24 [gkellogg]
q+
14:56:08 [pchampin]
@pfps and https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/wiki/Describing-a-Union-of-Changes-to-a-Named-Graph IMO
14:56:27 [pchampin]
ack pfps
14:57:26 [doerth]
doerth has joined #rdf-star
14:57:34 [enrico]
q+
14:58:15 [AndyS]
Need to be careful about numbers of UCs because we have also said "requirement X is equivalent UC Y" and not gone further.
14:58:32 [niklasl]
+1 to not solve philosophical permathreads
14:58:38 [AndyS]
ack TallTed
14:58:38 [Zakim]
TallTed, you wanted to remind that we haven't really built Use Cases & Requirements, so we still cannot evaluate well whether any proposal satisfies more or fewer requirements (and
14:58:40 [pchampin]
q?
14:58:41 [Zakim]
... which differ) than any other proposal
14:58:58 [doerthe]
doerthe has joined #rdf-star
14:59:47 [niklasl]
q+
14:59:57 [tl]
q+
15:01:13 [AndyS]
Yes to -- "quote what they said" and "talk about what they said"
15:02:24 [pchampin]
ack Souri
15:02:24 [tl]
+1 to graphs...
15:02:29 [Souri]
Just to confirm: Can this be used to represent a path from alice to bob with annotated edges? => :r1 rdf:annotationOf <<' :alice :knows _:b '>> . :r2 rdf:annotationOf <<' _:b :knows :bob '>> . :r1 :linkNum 1 ; :cost 100 . :r2 :linkNum 2 ; :cost 200 .
15:02:59 [pfps]
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/wiki/Summary was generated quite some ago but has not been discussed by the WG.
15:03:40 [AndyS]
One triple at a time - isn't this because semantics/entailment in RDF works on triples?
15:04:41 [TallTed]
_:b cannot be *understood* to denote the same node in both quoted triples, *however* just as any two blanknode references *could* denote the same node, those *could* denote the same
15:06:07 [tl]
@AndyS it's possible to define that an annotation on a graph annotates each triple in the graph (forEach). that IMO solves that issue
15:06:12 [niklasl]
But with these opaque, the fact that _:b owl:sameAs _:b .doesn't help, nor anything else?
15:06:40 [pchampin]
q?
15:07:00 [AndyS]
Yes it can depending on the design. Parser wise it is the same object -- this is "below" denotation. The abstract graph has one bnode term.
15:07:23 [AndyS]
... then there is interpretation.
15:09:18 [AndyS]
<<??>> :addToGraph "Tuesday" . <<??>> :factHappened "1850"^^gYear .
15:09:20 [pchampin]
q?
15:09:25 [AndyS]
ack gkellogg
15:09:37 [AndyS]
ack enrico
15:11:12 [doerthe]
doerthe has joined #rdf-star
15:12:29 [pfps]
In opaque contexts, one could arrange things so that the denotion of IRIs, literals, and blank nodes are themselves.
15:12:55 [pchampin]
ack niklasl
15:13:26 [enrico]
pfps: yes, that' would be my "standard name assumption" I mention before.
15:14:12 [niklasl]
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Proposal:-Triple-Tokens-Entailing-Reified-Statements#compatibility-with-existing-use-cases
15:14:43 [pfps]
In some sense, this is the natural denotation in opaque contexts. But there is a lot of philosophical discussion on exactly what is the meaning of identifiers in various opqaquey contexts.
15:16:09 [AndyS]
Niklasl - I 'm confused by your wiki page that says its a proposal yet you said it's an exploration.
15:16:53 [pchampin]
ack tl
15:17:20 [TallTed]
pfps - s/the **denotion** of IRIs, literals, and blank nodes are themselves/the **denotation** of IRIs, literals, and blank nodes are themselves/ ?
15:17:58 [AndyS]
q+
15:19:07 [enrico]
TallTed - yes
15:19:29 [TallTed]
s/arrange things so that the denotion/arrange things so that the denotation/
15:19:30 [AndyS]
q-
15:19:37 [niklasl]
AndyS - It's a proposal, based on Enrico's proposed baseline. But I'm not sure it works (it has issues).
15:19:41 [TallTed]
s|pfps - s/the **denotion** of IRIs, literals, and blank nodes are themselves/the **denotation** of IRIs, literals, and blank nodes are themselves/ ?||
15:19:47 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:19:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:20:24 [TallTed]
s/TallTed - yes//
15:22:14 [Souri]
Thinking from a user point of view, my feeling is that a type of opacity that allows sharing of terms among opaque triple-terms would be useful, and simpler to understand, in practice. (The opacity of course has to still have many-to-one restriction by not allowing RDF entailment based on an opaque triple-term.)
15:22:16 [pchampin]
q?
15:27:07 [pchampin]
q?
15:27:10 [niklasl]
q+
15:27:14 [pchampin]
q+
15:27:44 [doerthe]
doerthe has joined #rdf-star
15:28:47 [pchampin]
q-
15:28:51 [pchampin]
ack niklasl
15:29:01 [tl]
q+
15:31:19 [AndyS]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/139681/2024-07-baseline/
15:32:00 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:32:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/06/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:03:35 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:07:31 [TallTed]
zakim, bye
16:07:31 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees have been TallTed, niklasl, pchampin, enrico, Souri, gkellogg, tl, pfps, AndyS
16:07:31 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-star
16:07:36 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, bye
16:07:36 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items