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