IRC log of rdf-star on 2024-07-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:59:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
13:59:30 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/07/19-rdf-star-irc
13:59:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-star
14:00:39 [enrico]
enrico has joined #rdf-star
14:00:51 [enrico]
present+
14:01:05 [TallTed]
meeting: RDF-star Semantics TF
14:01:07 [TallTed]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20240719T100000/
14:01:08 [agendabot]
clear agenda
14:01:08 [agendabot]
agenda+ discussion on the -> minimal baseline https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22minimal-baseline%22 and the -> use cases https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/wiki/Summary
14:01:08 [agendabot]
agenda+
14:01:09 [TallTed]
present+
14:01:11 [TallTed]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:01:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/19-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:01:15 [TallTed]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:01:16 [TallTed]
TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF-star Semantics TF 2024-07-19 -- agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20240719T100000/
14:02:13 [TallTed]
previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/07/18-rdf-star-minutes.html
14:02:15 [TallTed]
next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-rdf-star-minutes.html
14:02:45 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-star
14:03:20 [TallTed]
present+ Souri, AndyS, niklasl, pfps
14:03:33 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:03:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/19-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:04:01 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
14:04:02 [tl]
tl has joined #rdf-star
14:04:07 [TallTed]
present+ tl
14:04:12 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-star
14:04:20 [gkellogg]
present+
14:08:47 [N]
N has joined #rdf-star
14:09:04 [niklasl]
niklasl has joined #rdf-star
14:09:10 [niklasl]
present+
14:13:53 [AndyS]
present+
14:14:05 [AndyS]
zakim, what meeting is this?
14:14:05 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, AndyS.
14:14:14 [AndyS]
rrsagent, meeting?
14:14:14 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'meeting'
14:14:23 [tl]
q+
14:14:27 [AndyS]
zakim, where am I?
14:14:27 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, AndyS.
14:14:44 [AndyS]
q+
14:14:50 [AndyS]
ack tl
14:14:54 [TallTed]
Zakim, this is RDF-star Semantics TF
14:14:54 [Zakim]
got it, TallTed
14:15:07 [TallTed]
Zakim, meeting?
14:15:07 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, TallTed.
14:15:57 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:15:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/19-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:16:04 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, pointer?
14:16:04 [RRSAgent]
See https://www.w3.org/2024/07/19-rdf-star-irc#T14-16-04
14:17:55 [tl]
q+
14:18:13 [tl]
ack AndyS
14:18:58 [niklasl]
I agree to suggest/advice but not commit.
14:20:11 [niklasl]
As gkellogg has noted in the past, mapping LPG to RDF is similar to mapping JSON to RDF; there are lots of detailed choices, which (as AndyS just said) is context-sensitive.
14:23:36 [niklasl]
I'd say the `<<(:a :TRANSACTION :b)>>` is a reference the abstract relationship, and that is reified by the Transaction resource `:t1`. That is formally enough information; but users would *probably* prefer it to also be asserted. Ideally using the annotation syntax. (My too-late-for-this-meeting last email expanded on this.)
14:25:53 [niklasl]
(my last email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jul/0094.html )
14:27:40 [niklasl]
s/:a/:a1/
14:27:45 [niklasl]
s/:b/:a2/
14:28:04 [niklasl]
q+
14:28:06 [enrico]
q?
14:28:14 [tl]
ack tl
14:28:21 [Souri]
Named-and-Asserted (atomic, not just shortcut)=> :e1 || :a1 :paid :a2 . Named-and-Unasserted=> :e2 | :a2 :paid :a3 .
14:28:26 [tl]
ack niklasl
14:30:06 [Souri]
q+
14:32:50 [enrico]
ack souri
14:33:41 [niklasl]
q+ to say that *no* simple relationship is asserted in LPGs (only "occurrences")
14:37:10 [tl]
q+
14:37:29 [enrico]
ack niklasl
14:37:29 [Zakim]
niklasl, you wanted to say that *no* simple relationship is asserted in LPGs (only "occurrences")
14:37:32 [gkellogg]
q+
14:38:27 [enrico]
ack tl
14:40:29 [enrico]
q+
14:42:23 [enrico]
enrico has joined #rdf-star
14:42:28 [enrico]
present+
14:42:30 [enrico]
q?
14:42:48 [niklasl]
So you don't want to change the definition of a graph being a set of triples? That is, it is enough with annotation sugar, but you want to expand it to something like `:a1 :paid :a2 . :e1 rdf:implies <<( :a1 :paid :a2 )>> .`?
14:43:02 [AndyS]
q+ to ask about graph merge if there is a "no asserted triple" mode
14:43:44 [enrico]
ack gkellog
14:44:15 [tl]
ack enrico
14:44:28 [AndyS]
q-
14:45:06 [tl]
q+
14:45:23 [gkellogg]
enrico: Many-to-one restrictions are implicit in the LPG transformation as described in my document.
14:46:13 [niklasl]
the document is https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-and-LPGs
14:48:55 [Souri]
Unless we specifically use reification quads, every triple in RDF1.1 is asserted. RDF1.2 is enabling unasserted statements.
14:49:23 [tl]
ack tl
14:49:45 [enrico]
q+
14:51:24 [niklasl]
It's not hidden, it is transparent. It is not itself in the world as a simple relationship in this model. A "nicer" model would have it there.
14:56:37 [gkellogg]
+1. An assertion implies that it is in the graph. A triple term, which is not in the graph itself is not an assertion. It may be a "claim" or "hypothesis".
14:57:10 [Souri]
An RDF graph has this triple=> :s :p :o . This triple is asserted. Suppose I want to add annotations for this asserted triple. I need to add a "name" (not a reifier, because there is no reification happening here) to be able to say something about it.
14:58:35 [enrico]
ack enrico
15:01:11 [niklasl]
Souri The graph is a set, so I don't know what "this" means, the membership of the abstract triple or "some occurrence"?
15:04:38 [tl]
q+
15:06:49 [enrico]
ack tl
15:08:27 [niklasl]
q+
15:09:29 [gkellogg]
q+
15:11:39 [niklasl]
Technically this is the "frozen" version: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22minimal-baseline%22/c5e97e27bfc93b06337f1b1324ed6aef603972eb But I agree to make it clear and public.
15:18:07 [TallTed]
"final revised updated new 2024-06-23 version.txt"
15:20:57 [tl]
q+
15:23:27 [gkellogg]
q-
15:23:43 [tl]
ack niklas
15:23:45 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-star
15:24:41 [enrico]
ack tl
15:24:45 [AndyS]
q?
15:25:28 [TallTed]
"asserted triple" vs "unasserted triple". Calling "triples" "assertions" is better than calling "triples" "facts". "Unasserted assertions" is better than "unasserted facts".
15:26:07 [TallTed]
q+
15:27:00 [niklasl]
q+
15:28:06 [tl]
how about "described triple"?
15:28:22 [niklasl]
I can read "unasserted triple term" as a shorthand expression for "a triple term that is not also asserted" (i.e. is not also in the graph").
15:34:23 [niklasl]
+1 to TallTed, annotation syntax seems essential to me.
15:36:12 [niklasl]
I think Thomas means that if you woundtrip: `s: :p :o {| NAME e1 |} . << :e2 | :s :p :o >> .` we get `s: :p :o {| NAME :e1 |}, {| NAME :e2 |} .` I'm personally fine with that (since I expect it to work like that).
15:36:16 [enrico]
q?
15:36:30 [TallTed]
q-
15:36:37 [niklasl]
q-
15:36:38 [enrico]
ack niklasl
15:36:47 [tl]
s/woundtrip/roundtrip
15:36:49 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:36:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/19-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:08:33 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:17:26 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:39:01 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:55:19 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:00:25 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:23:44 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:46:00 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:56:22 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:59:36 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:22:13 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:39:37 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:55:39 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:21:00 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:50:33 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:26:29 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:49:28 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:10:06 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:38:13 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:03:42 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:36:33 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:55:40 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:14:58 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:39:08 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:58:27 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star