14:04:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:04:38 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/07/26-rdf-star-irc
14:04:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:04:39 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), gkellogg
14:04:47 <gkellogg> meeting: RDF-star semantics TF
14:05:00 <gkellogg> present+
14:05:26 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:05:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:05:35 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:05:37 <gkellogg> present+ enrico Souri niklasl AndyS thomas pfps TallTed
14:06:22 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/07/25-rdf-star-minutes.html
14:06:22 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-rdf-star-minutes.html
14:06:34 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
14:06:34 <Zakim> Present: gkellogg, enrico, Souri, niklasl, AndyS, thomas, pfps, TallTed
14:06:37 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, Souri, niklasl, enrico, pfps, gkellogg, thomas, driib5, TallTed, pchampin, gb, ktk, csarven, rhiaro, Tpt, agendabot, gtw
14:09:23 <enrico> q?
14:09:25 <niklasl> Agree.
14:09:37 <thomas> q+
14:12:42 <AndyS> q+
14:15:09 <AndyS> ack thomas
14:16:15 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:16:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:16:44 <AndyS> q-
14:17:46 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20240726T100000/
14:17:46 <agendabot> clear agenda
14:17:46 <agendabot> agenda+ Discuss about parts of the baseline semantics which are still unclear to people
14:17:46 <agendabot> agenda+ Understand the semantics of Thomas' proposal
14:22:35 <Souri> q+
14:24:02 <thomas> q+
14:25:52 <TallTed> << :a :b :c >> a lpg:edge
14:27:33 <niklasl> I've seen LPG examples with edge attributes like "probability: 0.5". I don't know if that cleanly maps to an "asserted triple" in RDF.
14:27:46 <TallTed> +1
14:28:23 <AndyS> Not all LPG have edge ids esp newer ones - is it in GQL?
14:28:48 <enrico> q+
14:28:48 <thomas> +1 to Souri
14:28:57 <enrico> ack souri
14:29:00 <thomas> q-
14:29:42 <AndyS> RDF can publish information like p=0.5 (if careful) -- it can't use that info in the base semantics.
14:29:59 <AndyS> ack enrico
14:30:47 <Souri> q+
14:32:09 <thomas> q+
14:32:41 <Souri> Each LPG edge has a unique id: say e1, and e2 -- for identical (s) -[:p]-> (o). RDF: :e1 rdf:asserts <<( :s :p :o )>> . :e2 rdf:asserts <<( :s :p :o )>> .
14:33:50 <enrico> But Souri, what do you think of https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-and-LPGs
14:34:33 <AndyS> q+
14:34:42 <niklasl> Is it really too hard to A) assert the triple, B) refer to it from :e1 and :e2 ?
14:34:46 <enrico> ack souri
14:34:51 <enrico> ack thomas
14:35:12 <enrico> q+
14:36:33 <TallTed> to be specific: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jul/0109.html
14:37:35 <enrico> ack andys
14:38:11 <enrico> CREATE (a1)-[:TRANSACTION {date: "2002-09-24Z"}]->(a2)
14:38:25 <enrico> CREATE (a1)-[:TRANSACTION {date: "2002-09-24Z"}]->(a2)
14:39:19 <niklasl> The lines are the edges. (It's not predicate logic by any means IIUC.)
14:39:24 <enrico> CREATE (a1)-[my-fancy-tran:TRANSACTION {date: "2002-09-24Z"}]->(a2)
14:39:27 <Souri> Niklas, An LPG edge e => (s) -[:p]-> (o) requires two RDF triples: :s :p :o . :e rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> .
14:40:25 <niklasl> Souri, yes, that is the steps "A" and" B" in my wording above.
14:41:38 <enrico> q?
14:42:32 <niklasl> Example sent to the list with an LPG with two labels on one edge: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jul/0104.html
14:43:43 <TallTed> q+
14:44:32 <enrico> ack enrico
14:45:05 <Souri> q+
14:45:28 <Souri> absolutely ... fully agree
14:45:39 <niklasl> easy != simple
14:47:44 <AndyS> ack TallTed
14:47:54 <AndyS> q+
14:49:54 <thomas> @TallTed the charter says specify statements about statements, and teh background to chartering a WG was enable RDF/LPG interop. that guides what we do
14:50:10 <enrico> q?
14:51:37 <AFS> AFS has joined #rdf-star
14:51:47 <AFS> q?
14:51:53 <AFS> ack Souri
14:53:26 <thomas> q+
14:53:40 <AFS> ack AndyS
14:55:33 <AFS> :s :p :o {| :p :r |}
14:56:21 <AFS> :s :p :o {| id |}
14:56:28 <enrico> A formal proposal about this discussion: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Extending-the-baseline-with-%22asserted%22-stuff
14:57:21 <enrico> ack thomas
14:57:26 <AFS> :s :p :o {| id |}    is     :s :p :o . id rdf:reifies <<(:s :p :o)>>
14:57:55 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
14:57:58 <enrico> q+
14:57:58 <niklasl> enrico, does that proposal extend simple entailment?
14:58:24 <enrico> niklasl: no, rdf entailemnt
14:58:28 <niklasl> OK
14:59:14 <niklasl> then it is not true anymore (e.g. when all marriages have ended)
14:59:26 <AFS> << id | :s :p :o >> .
14:59:40 <AFS> :s :p :o {| id |}   is     :s :p :o . << id | :s :p :o >> .
14:59:52 <niklasl> +1 for the idea
15:00:09 <niklasl> (of what AndyS writes now)
15:00:12 <AFS> :s :p :o {| id |}   is     :s :p :o . << id | :s :p :o >> .  is     :s :p :o . id rdf:reifies <<(:s :p :o)>>
15:00:25 <Souri> :s :p :o {| id1, id2 |} . Then DELETE :s :p :o   happens.
15:03:20 <AFS> DELETE2:s :p :o  CASCADE can be defined that does that.
15:03:34 <AFS> DELETE :s :p :o  CASCADE    can be defined that does that.
15:03:35 <niklasl> I have replied about this case (see "Separate Assertion" in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jul/0094.html )
15:04:01 <thomas> "Asserting an RDF triple says that some relationship, indicated by the predicate, holds between the resources denoted by the subject and object." https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/
15:04:56 <niklasl> q+
15:05:09 <enrico> ack enrico
15:05:35 <Souri> What if we say every RDF :s :p :o triple actually has an id and is independently asserted or not asserted?
15:06:05 <AFS> How to handle set semantics?
15:06:27 <Souri> set of <id, sub, pred, obj>
15:06:52 <AFS> SELECT * { :s :p :o } is a count of 2?
15:07:28 <Souri> yes, but we can do DISTINCT :s :p :o
15:07:47 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:07:53 <enrico> q+
15:08:52 <AFS> :s :p :o . :s :p :o .  ==> SELECT * { :s :p :o } is a count of 2?  (multiple occurrences of triples is common in data integration usage)
15:09:43 <niklasl> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/issues/27
15:09:44 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/issues/27 -> Issue 27 Integrating different ontology designs through entailment upon triple terms (by niklasl) [use case]
15:09:58 <enrico> ack enrico
15:10:25 <AFS> q+
15:10:40 <Souri> :s :p :o . :s :p :o .  ==> Without an explicit id these collapse into one, possibly with foo(s,p,o) as the id. So, count will be 1.
15:10:54 <AFS> q-
15:11:10 <AFS> :s :p :o {id } . :s :p :o .  ?
15:11:59 <TallTed> SELECT ( COUNT (*) AS ?count ) { :s :p :o }   ==  2
15:11:59 <TallTed> SELECT ( COUNT ( DISTINCT (*) ) AS ?count ) { :s :p :o }   ==  1
15:11:59 <TallTed> ?
15:11:59 <TallTed> can work when the 2 triples are in different named graphs
15:12:27 <Souri> explicit id cannot match a hypothetical foo(s,p,o). So, these are two distinct triples considering <id, sub, pred, obj> as the uniqueness criteria.
15:13:43 <TallTed> q+
15:15:09 <AFS> :s :p :o {id } :s :p :o  then  DELETE :s :p :o  then SELECT  * { ?x ?y ?z } ?
15:15:34 <TallTed> "a triple with an id" is "a quad" though not the quads commonly discussed in RDF 1.1
15:15:39 <enrico> q+
15:15:55 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:17:45 <enrico> ack tallted
15:22:42 <Souri> q+
15:23:33 <enrico> ack enrico
15:23:55 <enrico> q+
15:24:24 <AFS> ack Souri
15:29:10 <enrico> q+
15:30:14 <enrico> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Extending-the-baseline-with-%22asserted%22-stuff
15:30:34 <AFS> q+
15:32:23 <Souri> :s :p :o . is equivalent to => foo(:s,:p,:o) rdf:asserts <<( :s :p :o )>> .
15:32:33 <niklasl> It is indeed a very strong notion.
15:33:21 <Souri> People can always write: :id rdf:asserts <<( :s :p :o )>> . as well
15:33:42 <Souri> also, :id rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> .
15:33:45 <enrico> ack enrico
15:34:47 <Souri> q+
15:35:09 <enrico> :a rdfs:subclass :b. : rdfs:subclass :c.    |=   :a rdfs:subclass :c.
15:35:28 <Souri> Not inferred. :s :p :o is same as => foo(:s,:p,:o) rdf:asserts <<( :s :p :o )>> .
15:36:04 <Souri> With that DELETE has no complications of deleting a portion of a composite.
15:36:36 <niklasl> And if users, "for convenience" adds the triple too; deleting the reifiers leaves the triple there. So it gets very confusing.
15:36:44 <enrico> ack AFS
15:36:45 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:36:48 <enrico> ack souri
15:37:57 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:37:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:38:45 <TallTed> Zakim, end meeting
15:38:45 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been gkellogg, enrico, Souri, niklasl, AndyS, thomas, pfps, TallTed
15:38:47 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:38:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/07/26-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim
15:38:53 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, TallTed; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:38:54 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
15:38:56 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
15:38:56 <RRSAgent> I see no action items