IRC log of rdf-star on 2024-08-08
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:55:49 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
- 15:55:53 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/08/08-rdf-star-irc
- 15:56:00 [ktk]
- meeting: RDF-star WG biweekly focused meeting
- 15:56:10 [ktk]
- Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/23bcb331-af6e-40af-98f1-11c029455d12/20240808T120000/
- 15:56:10 [agendabot]
- clear agenda
- 15:56:10 [agendabot]
- agenda+ Final vote on singleton properties and on opaque IRIs -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-rdf-star-minutes.html#t04 ; LPG problems we want to solve -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/wiki/Summary
- 15:59:24 [ora]
- ora has joined #rdf-star
- 16:00:27 [eBremer]
- eBremer has joined #rdf-star
- 16:00:32 [AndyS]
- AndyS has joined #rdf-star
- 16:00:46 [TallTed]
- clear agenda
- 16:00:46 [TallTed]
- agenda+ Final vote on singleton properties and on opaque IRIs -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-rdf-star-minutes.html#t04
- 16:00:46 [TallTed]
- agenda+ LPG problems we want to solve -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/wiki/Summary
- 16:00:54 [thomas]
- thomas has joined #rdf-star
- 16:01:18 [TallTed]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:01:20 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/08-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
- 16:01:41 [gtw]
- present+
- 16:01:43 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
- 16:01:46 [eBremer]
- present+
- 16:01:47 [niklasl]
- present+
- 16:01:49 [ora]
- present+
- 16:01:49 [Souri]
- Souri has joined #rdf-star
- 16:01:49 [niklasl]
- scribe: niklasl
- 16:01:55 [ora]
- chair: ora
- 16:01:55 [ktk]
- present+
- 16:01:59 [TallTed]
- previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/08/02-rdf-star-minutes.html
- 16:02:00 [TallTed]
- next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/08/09-rdf-star-minutes.html
- 16:02:04 [TallTed]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 16:02:10 [thomas]
- present+
- 16:02:14 [gkellogg]
- present+
- 16:02:20 [Souri]
- present+
- 16:02:24 [TallTed]
- present+
- 16:02:24 [TallTed]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:02:25 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/08-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
- 16:02:31 [ktk]
- regrets+ pchampin
- 16:02:35 [ktk]
- regrets+ olaf
- 16:02:47 [AndyS]
- present+
- 16:03:45 [ktk]
- regrets+ AZ
- 16:03:45 [niklasl]
- Topic: Final vote on singleton properties and on opaque IRIs
- 16:04:03 [ktk]
- regrets+ doerthe
- 16:04:31 [pfps]
- pfps has joined #rdf-star
- 16:04:41 [pfps]
- present+
- 16:04:48 [ktk]
- regerts- doerthe
- 16:05:32 [niklasl]
- enrico: Finalize two points: 1) close discussion on singleton properties, 2) close discussion on opacity
- 16:05:46 [niklasl]
- ... re. opacity: an IRI should denote the same thing
- 16:05:51 [doerthe]
- doerthe has joined #rdf-star
- 16:05:56 [doerthe]
- present+
- 16:06:29 [TallTed]
- s/an IRI should denote/an IRI should always (i.e., in all contexts) denote/
- 16:06:35 [niklasl]
- ... re singleton properties: semantics implies either an automatic owl:sameAs or owl:differentFrom
- 16:06:53 [niklasl]
- ... We should be ready to stop discussing this.
- 16:06:55 [ktk]
- regrets- rthe, I
- 16:07:01 [ktk]
- regrets- doerthe
- 16:07:07 [niklasl]
- ora: Anybody else have opinions?
- 16:07:20 [enrico]
- enrico has joined #rdf-star
- 16:07:44 [enrico]
- present+
- 16:07:47 [doerthe]
- @ktk, I am here :)
- 16:07:51 [niklasl]
- ... singleton properties have come up several times the past 20 years. Discussions either don't go anywhere or have been rejected. You would have to modify your modelling to handle those.
- 16:07:58 [ora]
- q?
- 16:08:05 [niklasl]
- ... re. Opacity: the point on IRIs is well taken.
- 16:08:25 [niklasl]
- ... We should to two separate resolutions and move on.
- 16:08:31 [ora]
- PROPOSAL: Close discussion on singleton properties
- 16:08:38 [ktk]
- +1
- 16:08:41 [gtw]
- +1
- 16:08:41 [gkellogg]
- +1
- 16:08:42 [enrico]
- +1
- 16:08:42 [niklasl]
- +1
- 16:08:42 [doerthe]
- +1
- 16:08:43 [AndyS]
- +1
- 16:08:44 [ora]
- +1
- 16:08:45 [Souri]
- +1
- 16:08:46 [eBremer]
- +1
- 16:08:47 [thomas]
- 0
- 16:09:15 [niklasl]
- TallTed: To be clear. We're deciding no not do these.
- 16:09:26 [pfps]
- +1 but also that we are not doing singleton properties
- 16:09:31 [gtw]
- s/no not/to not/
- 16:09:38 [Souri]
- s/no not/to not/
- 16:09:38 [niklasl]
- ora: Yes, that's what we mean.
- 16:10:04 [TallTed]
- PROPOSAL: We are not specifying singleton properties.
- 16:10:41 [ora]
- PROPOSAL: The group will not consider semantics based on singleton properties
- 16:10:45 [gtw]
- +1
- 16:10:45 [gkellogg]
- +1
- 16:10:46 [TallTed]
- +1
- 16:10:46 [niklasl]
- +1
- 16:10:47 [eBremer]
- +1
- 16:10:47 [ora]
- +1
- 16:10:49 [ktk]
- +1
- 16:10:49 [thomas]
- 0
- 16:10:50 [enrico]
- +1
- 16:10:50 [pfps]
- +1
- 16:10:50 [doerthe]
- +1
- 16:10:52 [Souri]
- +1
- 16:10:55 [AndyS]
- +1
- 16:11:25 [draggett]
- draggett has joined #rdf-star
- 16:11:31 [draggett]
- present+
- 16:11:47 [ora]
- RESOLVED: The group will not consider semantics based on singleton properties
- 16:12:31 [niklasl]
- thomas: In some ways there is value in the notion of singleton properties, in some ways not.
- 16:14:08 [ora]
- PROPOSAL: The group will not consider semantics where IRIs denote different things in different contexts (sometimes called "opaque IRIs")
- 16:14:13 [gkellogg]
- +1
- 16:14:14 [ora]
- +1
- 16:14:15 [enrico]
- +1
- 16:14:15 [niklasl]
- +1
- 16:14:18 [TallTed]
- +1
- 16:14:18 [eBremer]
- +1
- 16:14:18 [Souri]
- +1
- 16:14:19 [gtw]
- +1
- 16:14:20 [AndyS]
- +1
- 16:14:22 [thomas]
- +1
- 16:14:22 [pfps]
- +1
- 16:14:25 [ktk]
- +1
- 16:14:38 [ora]
- RESOLVED: The group will not consider semantics where IRIs denote different things in different contexts (sometimes called "opaque IRIs")
- 16:15:10 [niklasl]
- Topic: LPG problems we want to solve
- 16:15:30 [TallTed]
- Zakim, next item
- 16:15:30 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 -- Final vote on singleton properties and on opaque IRIs -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-rdf-star-minutes.html#t04 -- taken up [from TallTed]
- 16:15:39 [TallTed]
- Zakim, close agendum 1
- 16:15:39 [Zakim]
- agendum 1, Final vote on singleton properties and on opaque IRIs -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-rdf-star-minutes.html#t04, closed
- 16:15:41 [Zakim]
- I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
- 16:15:41 [Zakim]
- 2. LPG problems we want to solve -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/wiki/Summary [from TallTed]
- 16:15:46 [TallTed]
- z, next item
- 16:15:52 [TallTed]
- zakim, next item
- 16:15:53 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 -- LPG problems we want to solve -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/wiki/Summary -- taken up [from TallTed]
- 16:16:51 [niklasl]
- ora: Is a statement about a statement an equivalent of an LPG edge? Another question is if many-to-many is a problem for LPG interop.
- 16:17:07 [pfps]
- q+
- 16:17:18 [niklasl]
- ... That is, a single reifier for multiple triples.
- 16:17:19 [ora]
- ack pfps
- 16:17:55 [niklasl]
- pfps: We should not in any way be constrained by what cannot be done in LPGs.
- 16:18:36 [niklasl]
- ora: We (AWS) have seen customer demand for alignment with LPGs.
- 16:19:12 [TallTed]
- q+
- 16:19:18 [niklasl]
- ... If we make it impossible for an implementation no not be compliant with an RDF specification, that is a problem.
- 16:19:21 [pfps]
- q+
- 16:19:41 [niklasl]
- ... I think that the current baseline proposal could make this possible.
- 16:19:42 [ora]
- ack TallTed
- 16:19:54 [niklasl]
- TallTed: I do not understand why that would be so.
- 16:20:04 [AndyS]
- q+
- 16:20:21 [niklasl]
- ... Would Amazon formally object to an RDF 1.2 that is not perfectly aligned with LPGs?
- 16:20:32 [niklasl]
- ora: No, that's not what we're saying.
- 16:21:05 [thomas]
- q+
- 16:21:24 [enrico]
- q+
- 16:21:28 [niklasl]
- ... What we would like to see is the ability to offer an implementation where it is a level of interoperability of LPGs and RDF over the same graph. Or at least a view thereof.
- 16:21:58 [niklasl]
- ... In that regard, we're hoping that we can implement RDF 1.2 and still hold this interoperability.
- 16:22:00 [ora]
- ack pfps
- 16:22:39 [niklasl]
- pfps: We seem to be going back to the same discussion. Does Amazon not want to change an existing implementation?
- 16:22:46 [niklasl]
- ora: No, that is not true.
- 16:23:19 [ora]
- ack AndyS
- 16:23:23 [niklasl]
- TallTed: The data models are in some ways similar, but are very different in details. For instance, they are more like singleton properties; which we just decided not to do.
- 16:24:40 [niklasl]
- Andys: You said: being able to query across the models. Is it fair to say: if a mapping from LPG to RDF 1.2 is a subset of RDF 1.2, then that would fulfill your needs?
- 16:24:50 [niklasl]
- ora: Yes, RDF would be more expressive than LPGs.
- 16:25:12 [niklasl]
- AndyS: The difficult part: Can you draw out the requirements for that to happen?
- 16:25:52 [gtw]
- q+ to add that AWS interest is also in the other direction: we want some subset of RDF 1.2 to also be sensibly queryable in LPG languages
- 16:25:58 [niklasl]
- ora: It would satisfy us if an implementation of this subset would be considered a compliant implementation of RDF 1.2.
- 16:26:45 [niklasl]
- AndyS: It's how you can use it. To test that out, could it be done in RDF 1.2. ??
- 16:26:55 [Souri]
- Are we looking for a profile that only supports "many-to-one"?
- 16:27:32 [niklasl]
- ora: If we provided an implementation that only supported this subset, could we claim to have an RDF 1.2 implementation?
- 16:27:55 [niklasl]
- ... Could we have a profile of RDF 1.2 that does not mean full support?
- 16:28:08 [ora]
- ack thomas
- 16:28:11 [Souri]
- RDF1.2-Full and RDF1.2-LPG?
- 16:28:50 [niklasl]
- thomas: I don't know what this means. A proposal for such a profile would be much easier to discuss. There are many things in RDF that LPGs cannot support.
- 16:29:14 [niklasl]
- ora: I think this profile has been articulated in the past.
- 16:29:25 [ktk]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:29:26 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/08-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
- 16:29:33 [ora]
- ack enrico
- 16:29:39 [niklasl]
- ... we might nor have to change anything at this point.
- 16:29:47 [enrico]
- https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-and-LPGs
- 16:29:56 [pfps]
- s/nor/not/
- 16:30:02 [niklasl]
- enrico: A proposal made some time ago, discussed a lot.
- 16:31:06 [niklasl]
- ... As this stands, we can map the LPG model to RDF, and that would round-triple. There are things for the mapping still to discuss (the assertion, etc.), but not for this issue.
- 16:31:17 [ora]
- q+
- 16:31:41 [niklasl]
- ... We should not define a canonical LPG profile; we could show how it is possible.
- 16:32:17 [ora]
- ack gtw
- 16:32:17 [Zakim]
- gtw, you wanted to add that AWS interest is also in the other direction: we want some subset of RDF 1.2 to also be sensibly queryable in LPG languages
- 16:32:18 [niklasl]
- ... The details about what to see is orthogonal to this.
- 16:32:51 [AndyS]
- q+ to suggest a task force, with deadline(!), to produce a mapping from LPG (as in GQL) to RDF with query considered.
- 16:33:04 [niklasl]
- gtw: The interest of AWS is not just the mapping, we are interested in both directions of the mapping, for query languages.
- 16:33:23 [ora]
- q-
- 16:33:24 [niklasl]
- ... We want to see RDF 1.2 data queryable from LPGs.
- 16:33:28 [ora]
- ack AndyS
- 16:33:28 [Zakim]
- AndyS, you wanted to suggest a task force, with deadline(!), to produce a mapping from LPG (as in GQL) to RDF with query considered.
- 16:33:49 [niklasl]
- AndyS: Does that mean any RDF data, or RDF data conforming to a profile?
- 16:34:12 [niklasl]
- gtw: Any RDF with the caveat that things in RDF-star like the many-to-many probably can't be handled like that.
- 16:35:07 [gkellogg]
- q+
- 16:35:16 [Souri]
- RDF1.2-LPG = RDF1.2-Full - "many-to-many" .
- 16:35:34 [niklasl]
- AndyS: a concrete example would help to see the problem.
- 16:36:50 [niklasl]
- ora: The concrete problem is that we view a statement about a statement as an edge property in LPGs. A single reifier of multiple statements does not seem to be mappable to that.
- 16:37:15 [TallTed]
- Might SPARQL-in-GQL be an option to consider? something like SPARQL-in-SQL (a/k/a SPASQL) -- https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog/spasql-about-8486deecba66
- 16:37:17 [niklasl]
- AndyS: The N-ary-relationship-like effects is not possible?
- 16:37:17 [thomas]
- q+
- 16:38:08 [niklasl]
- ... Having one reifier for many triples is to have an N-ary relationship, to model the event of something with multiple relationships.
- 16:38:09 [TallTed]
- q+
- 16:38:38 [niklasl]
- ora: LPGs aside; in RDF, a statement about a statement, where the object is a node in the graph, is already an N-ary relationship?
- 16:38:53 [niklasl]
- ... We don't need to reify multiple triples for that.
- 16:39:10 [ora]
- ack gkellogg
- 16:39:48 [niklasl]
- gkellogg: A way to restate it might be: if we have a LPG profile with many-to-one, does that hold up under any entailment?
- 16:39:56 [Souri]
- :id | :john :weds :mary . :id :venue :church5 . This is a 3-ary relationship.
- 16:40:12 [doerthe]
- doerthe has joined #rdf-star
- 16:40:14 [niklasl]
- ... A triple term might entail more triples. Presumably the same reifier targets both.
- 16:40:18 [enrico]
- q+
- 16:40:20 [ora]
- ack thomas
- 16:41:01 [niklasl]
- thomas: Two options in the X-to-many: why not add all the annotations to each of those statments? Or, those together describe something, an event.
- 16:41:19 [niklasl]
- ... It wouldn't be perfect; probably not catastrophic.
- 16:41:49 [niklasl]
- ora: If we're ingesting full RDF 1.2 data and transform it on the fly to the many-to-one?
- 16:42:12 [niklasl]
- thomas: it wouldn't be a problem apart from losing the togetherness.
- 16:42:15 [ora]
- ack TallTed
- 16:42:21 [pfps]
- q+
- 16:43:01 [niklasl]
- TallTed: Is this more a problem for querying? A question for SPARQL 1.2? Like for SPARQL-in-GQL...?
- 16:43:27 [ora]
- ack enrico
- 16:43:29 [niklasl]
- ora: That's interesting.
- 16:43:35 [enrico]
- << :w2 | :liz :married :richard >> a :Marriage ; :starts 1975 .
- 16:43:41 [enrico]
- << :w2 | :richard :married-in :las-vegas >> :best-man :jim-benton .
- 16:43:42 [niklasl]
- enrico: I don't think this can be avoided.
- 16:43:48 [enrico]
- << :w2 | :liz :married-on 1975 >> :location :las-vegas .
- 16:44:09 [niklasl]
- ... This is for data integration, written in different ways - a major case for RDF.
- 16:44:34 [niklasl]
- Same reifier, same properties; different properties.
- 16:44:51 [niklasl]
- s/Same reifier/\.\.\. Same reifier/
- 16:44:53 [ora]
- ack pfps
- 16:44:56 [gkellogg]
- New syntax would be << :liz :married :richard ~ :w2 >> a :Marriage ; :starts 1975 .
- 16:45:17 [pfps]
- Multiple triples with one reifier, potentially among other things, permits provenance information to be attached to multiple triples without duplicating the provenance triples. This was discussed a while ago in the working group and the savings were considered to be worthwhile. For example,
- 16:45:17 [pfps]
- :r rdf:reifies << :alice :age 53 >> .
- 16:45:17 [pfps]
- :r rdf:reifies << :bob :age 54 >> .
- 16:45:17 [pfps]
- ... ... ... ... ...
- 16:45:20 [pfps]
- :r rdf:reifies << :zeke :age 22 >> .
- 16:45:24 [pfps]
- :r :source :census .
- 16:45:27 [pfps]
- :r :retrieved "20 jun 2024"^^xsd:date .
- 16:45:30 [pfps]
- :r ....
- 16:45:33 [pfps]
- This is a savings of at least two triples for each of the annotated triples.
- 16:45:39 [TallTed]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:45:40 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/08-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
- 16:45:46 [niklasl]
- pfps: We have had a long discussion about cases for a single reifier. Such as for provenance.
- 16:45:46 [thomas]
- q+
- 16:45:50 [ora]
- ack thomas
- 16:46:19 [niklasl]
- thomas: In Enricos examples, you can have separate edges for w2, and annotate each of them with the same properties.
- 16:46:23 [niklasl]
- q+
- 16:46:44 [ora]
- ack niklasl
- 16:47:36 [ora]
- q+
- 16:47:46 [ora]
- ack ora
- 16:47:52 [TallTed]
- s|-> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/wiki/Summary|-> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-and-LPGs|
- 16:48:05 [TallTed]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:48:06 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/08-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
- 16:48:35 [niklasl]
- ora: From my understanding, given the current baseline proposal, we would be happy if we could have a profile where we do not support many-to-many.
- 16:48:47 [niklasl]
- ... we're not really objecting to anything.
- 16:48:52 [thomas]
- that would be ok with me
- 16:49:02 [pfps]
- q+
- 16:49:23 [niklasl]
- ... The WG would be free of this trouble. We would just like to see an LPG-friendly profile for this.
- 16:49:37 [enrico]
- q+
- 16:50:05 [niklasl]
- ... Is there an argument for why having that would be harmful?
- 16:50:36 [niklasl]
- ... We would have a hard time supporting this otherwise.
- 16:50:45 [ora]
- ack pfps
- 16:50:55 [gtw]
- q+ I think an *official* profile would be difficult to standardize for the reason gkellogg mentioned -- entailment would immediately pull you out of the profile. So it's a profile that precludes higher levels of the semweb stack.
- 16:51:03 [gtw]
- q+ to say I think an *official* profile would be difficult to standardize for the reason gkellogg mentioned -- entailment would immediately pull you out of the profile. So it's a profile that precludes higher levels of the semweb stack.
- 16:51:14 [niklasl]
- pfps: I do not like the idea of claiming LPG-friendliness. It really is about implementation.
- 16:51:32 [TallTed]
- q+
- 16:51:35 [ora]
- ack enrico
- 16:51:35 [AndyS]
- We will have to relax something. It need a lot of care to specified and frame that profile but it is one interesting way.
- 16:51:36 [niklasl]
- ... Implementation concerns are relevant, but please frame it like that if so.
- 16:51:43 [doerthe]
- q+
- 16:51:48 [enrico]
- << :w2 | :liz :married :richard >> a :Marriage ; :starts 1975 .
- 16:51:52 [AndyS]
- s/specified/specify/
- 16:51:54 [enrico]
- << :w2 | :richard :married-in :las-vegas >> :best-man :jim-benton .
- 16:52:07 [enrico]
- :liz owl:sameAs :richard .
- 16:52:14 [enrico]
- :married owl:sameAs :married-in .
- 16:52:21 [enrico]
- :richard owl:sameAs 1975 .
- 16:52:28 [niklasl]
- enrico: If this example is functional, this entailment is necessary.
- 16:52:54 [enrico]
- :richard owl:sameAs :las-vegas.
- 16:53:04 [TallTed]
- s/:richard owl:sameAs 1975 .//
- 16:53:27 [niklasl]
- ora: In a profile, that would not be accepted.
- 16:53:46 [thomas]
- q+
- 16:54:06 [doerthe]
- note that the wording was different (but let's not go there ;) )
- 16:54:15 [ora]
- ack gtw
- 16:54:15 [Zakim]
- gtw, you wanted to say I think an *official* profile would be difficult to standardize for the reason gkellogg mentioned -- entailment would immediately pull you out of the
- 16:54:18 [Zakim]
- ... profile. So it's a profile that precludes higher levels of the semweb stack.
- 16:54:53 [niklasl]
- gtw: We think of a syntactic constraint on the loader.
- 16:55:12 [thomas]
- thomas has joined #rdf-star
- 16:55:37 [ora]
- ack TallTed
- 16:56:12 [niklasl]
- TallTed: Is not doing a profile bad for RDF in general?
- 16:57:03 [Souri]
- Can we say (non-normative): Some implementations may enforce a unique(reifier) constraint in an RDF graph?
- 16:57:20 [niklasl]
- ora: It would be good for AWS to implement RDF 1.2. We really want RDF to have as wide a support as possible.
- 16:57:46 [niklasl]
- TallTed: it's a strategic decision for a vendor, customers have options.
- 16:58:03 [niklasl]
- q+
- 16:58:06 [AndyS]
- We could position this profile as a restriction pending future work. This WG does not the time and charter to fully do LPG/RDF.
- 16:58:44 [niklasl]
- ora: As Gregg said, the profile is syntactic in nature, is interesting.
- 16:59:15 [gkellogg]
- s/Gregg/Gregory/
- 16:59:32 [ora]
- ack doerthe
- 17:00:28 [niklasl]
- doerthe: Connecting to what Thomas said: if we have this profile, if you have two triple terms that denote the same thing, would you just pick one and be happy with that?
- 17:00:38 [niklasl]
- ora: I cannot give a definitive answer on that.
- 17:00:50 [TallTed]
- "One Graph" must necessarily have various sub-graphs, which have their own definitions, limitations, query languages, etc. Sub-graphs in LPG, and in RDF 1.1, and in RDF 1.2, and in SQL, etc.
- 17:01:02 [enrico]
- q+
- 17:01:20 [ora]
- ack thomas
- 17:01:25 [niklasl]
- doerthe: My main concern is that you could do the restriction, but there are problems with syntactic restrictions for something with semantics, but if we can work around that...
- 17:01:31 [gtw]
- we're over time
- 17:02:16 [niklasl]
- thomas: I made a mapping to RDF 1.1; RDF standard reification is semantic, but it is still restricted to one triple/relationship.
- 17:02:51 [niklasl]
- ... maybe add edge identifiers
- 17:03:26 [niklasl]
- enrico: In my document it is explicitly defined how to map back to LPGs.
- 17:03:48 [niklasl]
- ... it is a syntactic fragment. It is not semantic, not functional.
- 17:05:20 [gtw]
- gtw has left #rdf-star
- 17:05:28 [TallTed]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 17:05:30 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/08-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
- 17:05:40 [gtw]
- gtw has joined #rdf-star
- 17:08:27 [ktk]
- rs/We should to two/We should make two/
- 17:08:39 [ktk]
- s/We should to two/We should make two/
- 17:12:42 [ktk]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 17:12:43 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/08-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
- 17:13:48 [ktk]
- RRSAgent, leave
- 17:13:48 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items