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