IRC log of rdf-star on 2024-08-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:00:29 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/08/09-rdf-star-irc
14:00:30 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-star
14:00:31 [enrico]
enrico has joined #rdf-star
14:00:37 [TallTed]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20240809T100000/
14:00:37 [agendabot]
clear agenda
14:00:37 [agendabot]
agenda+ Discussion on open problems in the semantics of the baseline
14:00:39 [TallTed]
meeting: RDF-Star Semantics Task Force
14:00:39 [enrico]
present+
14:00:41 [TallTed]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:00:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/09-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:00:44 [TallTed]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:01:11 [TallTed]
previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/08/08-rdf-star-minutes.html
14:01:13 [TallTed]
next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/08/15-rdf-star-minutes.html
14:01:34 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
14:01:59 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:02:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/09-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:02:21 [gkellogg]
present+
14:02:45 [enrico]
Item propose for discussion by Andy: Discuss a roadmap for producing content for the RDF specifications and also identify any WG Notes. Objective: bring this roadmap to the full WG.
14:02:46 [doerthe]
doerthe has joined #rdf-star
14:03:04 [TallTed]
present+ TallTed, AndyS, gkellogg, pfps, niklasl, enrico, thomas, doerthe
14:03:40 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-star
14:03:47 [AndyS]
present+
14:05:15 [niklasl]
present+
14:06:41 [AndyS]
scribe: AndyS
14:06:56 [AndyS]
enrico: If we start from the baseline
14:07:58 [AndyS]
... we touch RDF Concepts, RDF Semantics, SPARQL, syntax documents
14:08:16 [AndyS]
AndyS: including RDF/XML esp. rdf:ID.
14:09:15 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-star
14:09:19 [AndyS]
enrico: talked to Stefan Staab about an improved reification based on RDF-star/CG
14:09:21 [Souri]
present+
14:10:00 [AndyS]
... believing we have the syntax of the of the GC
14:10:37 [AndyS]
gkellogg : N-triples, N-quads updated to latest syntax; Turtle partly done, more to do
14:10:46 [AndyS]
... to do - TriG
14:11:10 [AndyS]
... the WG has suggested we may not touch RDF/XML.
14:11:22 [AndyS]
.. . some work in JSON-LD
14:11:49 [AndyS]
s/.. ./.../
14:11:59 [doerthe]
present+
14:12:15 [enrico]
https://www.ki.uni-stuttgart.de/institute/news/Representing-Subjective-Facts-with-Epistemic-Knowledge-Graphs/
14:12:42 [AndyS]
s/Stefan/Steffen/
14:14:06 [niklasl]
https://w3c.github.io/rdf-turtle/spec/#reified-triples
14:14:31 [gkellogg]
https://w3c.github.io/rdf-turtle/spec/#triple-terms
14:14:33 [TallTed]
s/we may not/we might not/
14:17:53 [niklasl]
q+
14:18:34 [thomas]
q+
14:18:57 [AndyS]
AndyS: We should scope a "note" to get a sense of how much work is involved.
14:19:21 [AndyS]
niklasl: hope to contribute
14:19:32 [AndyS]
... also material in the RDF Primer
14:21:26 [AndyS]
thomas: could put the material in the primer
14:23:06 [thomas]
q+
14:23:11 [AndyS]
niklasl: will ask around at workplace for suggestions
14:23:19 [AndyS]
ack niklasl
14:23:23 [AndyS]
ack thomas
14:23:37 [niklasl]
q+
14:23:43 [AndyS]
thomas: RDF/XML - don't need to touch it
14:24:11 [AndyS]
... but in the note need to refer to rdf:ID and explain why it's different
14:25:12 [AndyS]
ack niklasl
14:25:46 [AndyS]
niklasl: named graph can be used for some purposes not covered by transparent RDF-star
14:25:59 [AndyS]
... and there is "unstarring"
14:26:38 [AndyS]
AndyS: where does "unstarring" go?
14:26:54 [AndyS]
gkellogg: in RDF-Concepts?
14:27:18 [AndyS]
... because in the RDF namespace
14:28:03 [AndyS]
AndyS: Impact on canonicalization - in the note?
14:28:12 [AndyS]
gkellogg: yes
14:28:35 [niklasl]
+1 to "re-starring" thoughts
14:28:52 [AndyS]
... and consider classical reification -> RDF-star -> unstar
14:29:15 [AndyS]
... and RDF-star -> unstar -> RDF-star
14:30:49 [AndyS]
niklasl: may be a subclass of rdf:Statement for RDF-star -> unstar -> RDF-star
14:32:47 [AndyS]
(discussion about subclass + domain)
14:35:01 [AndyS]
niklasl: will take stab at an outline
14:35:27 [AndyS]
agenda?
14:35:51 [AndyS]
enrico: baseline - syntax
14:35:58 [AndyS]
... full unrestricted
14:35:59 [gkellogg]
zakim, next item
14:35:59 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Discussion on open problems in the semantics of the baseline -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:36:10 [AndyS]
... well-formed for RDF entailment
14:36:51 [AndyS]
... open - triple terms only in the object position which could mean start with the well-formed syntax
14:36:54 [thomas]
q+
14:37:16 [niklasl]
q+
14:37:39 [AndyS]
... personal - I prefer not to have the triple term - object restriction at the lowest level.
14:37:56 [gkellogg]
q+
14:38:02 [AndyS]
thomas: prefer object restriction in the abstract data model
14:38:36 [AndyS]
ack thomas
14:38:43 [doerthe]
can you post again the current version of the baseline? I am back from holidays and wonder whether we changed
14:38:48 [AndyS]
ack niklasl
14:39:24 [AndyS]
niklasl: not in favour of unrestricted triple term in the data model
14:39:34 [enrico]
q+
14:39:42 [AndyS]
... there is generalized RDF (non-normative)
14:39:54 [AndyS]
... lots of variations - confusing?
14:40:45 [doerthe]
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22working-baseline%22?
14:42:09 [AndyS]
q?
14:42:33 [AndyS]
ack gkellogg
14:43:33 [AndyS]
gkellogg: currently RDF Concepts - object restriction + notes on use of triple terms with rdf:reifies
14:43:39 [niklasl]
q+
14:43:50 [doerthe]
I am actually against the restriction
14:44:22 [doerthe]
I also don't get it
14:45:04 [AndyS]
enrico: not seeing the harm of triple terms in the subject at the data model level ... wanting to see a concrete illustration
14:45:10 [doerthe]
how does object position prevent that?
14:45:16 [AndyS]
thomas: (spoken example)
14:45:21 [niklasl]
The seminal example mistake.
14:45:37 [pfps]
q+
14:45:46 [niklasl]
q-
14:46:00 [AndyS]
(discussion)
14:46:19 [AndyS]
ack enrico
14:47:46 [doerthe]
ok, what makes the object position so special?
14:48:13 [AndyS]
enrico: examples are outside the well-formedness
14:48:31 [niklasl]
The well-formed syntax is good and needed, yes; especially if the "unrestricted" allows too much in "user space".
14:48:38 [AndyS]
ack pfps
14:48:48 [AndyS]
pfps: I agree with Enrico
14:49:30 [niklasl]
q+
14:49:31 [AndyS]
... one of design philosophy of RDF is that you can do some really stupid thing with it
14:49:48 [niklasl]
Why don't we want to be consistent here then?
14:49:50 [AndyS]
... with inconsistencies
14:50:11 [gkellogg]
q+
14:50:25 [niklasl]
q-
14:50:26 [AndyS]
tallted: no way to handle literal-as-subjects at scale
14:50:26 [niklasl]
q+
14:50:41 [enrico]
q+
14:52:25 [AndyS]
gkellogg: literals-as-subject may be an implementation
14:52:50 [AndyS]
... impact
14:53:10 [AndyS]
ack gkellogg
14:53:19 [AndyS]
ack niklasl
14:54:01 [AndyS]
niklasl: maybe well-formedless is the solution - not clear to me ATM.
14:54:31 [AndyS]
... RDF/XML does not have literals-as-subject
14:55:37 [AndyS]
gkellogg: at the moment (RDF-concepts), abstract syntax does not allow (literals or) triple terms in the subject position
14:55:59 [AndyS]
... reified triples can be in the subject position in syntax
14:56:58 [AndyS]
... and we expect/hope that most use is via "agreed syntax" not raw rdf:reifies.
14:57:02 [AndyS]
q?
14:57:09 [AndyS]
ack enrico
14:57:39 [AndyS]
enrico: Triple terms are not like literals (not self-denoting)
14:58:10 [niklasl]
Literals are tuples too (and denote resources).
14:58:11 [AndyS]
... RDF is not an object oriented language - RDF is neutral to class and object-ness
14:58:43 [AndyS]
... often people write data in an object-like way but it is not required.
14:59:48 [AndyS]
q?
15:01:05 [AndyS]
... Turtle - maybe have only the shortland syntax
15:01:36 [AndyS]
NT is a syntax subset of TTL.
15:02:16 [Souri]
q+
15:02:18 [niklasl]
+1 for *at least* pushing well-formed; but yes, NT is the base
15:02:21 [gkellogg]
q+
15:02:22 [AndyS]
... encourage the well-formed syntax restriction
15:02:22 [doerthe]
I remember why I dislike the well-formed syntax, but I think that should better be discussed in mails. I will write one.
15:02:40 [AndyS]
ack Souri
15:02:49 [enrico]
yes, doerthe
15:03:36 [AndyS]
Souri: as I see it, it is associating a URI/bnode RDF term with a triple term. Then use RDF term as you like.
15:03:39 [doerthe]
so, I am against the restriction with the object position and even against well-formedness at all, but if we discuss these matters separately, I am with Enrico here
15:04:48 [AndyS]
s/use RDF term/use that RDF term/
15:04:54 [doerthe]
q+
15:04:58 [AndyS]
.. I like the restrictions.
15:05:02 [AndyS]
s/.. /.../
15:05:25 [AndyS]
gkellogg: good points about consistency concerns
15:05:26 [thomas]
+1 to Souri
15:05:48 [niklasl]
I agree with Souri that it seems simpler to add as little as possible to the RDF 1.1 abstract syntax.
15:05:52 [Souri]
q+
15:06:00 [AndyS]
ack gkellogg
15:06:11 [AndyS]
ack doerthe
15:06:26 [enrico]
q+
15:06:48 [AndyS]
doerthe: I don't think of the object position being different to the subject position
15:06:55 [AndyS]
ack Souri
15:07:07 [AndyS]
Souri: about the inverse
15:07:40 [niklasl]
It's a directed graph, so I'd say it "affords" only pointing *to* more complex structures of literals and triple terms. But that's not a "logical" position, it's an "ergonomic".
15:07:45 [AndyS]
... if rdf:reifiies domain & range is defined then this restricts the subject
15:08:12 [doerthe]
:isReifiedBy inverseOf :reifies ?
15:08:37 [AndyS]
... my emphasis is for rdf:reifies as identifier association.
15:08:39 [AndyS]
q?
15:08:40 [doerthe]
so, reified is simply not a "normal" propoerty?
15:08:48 [niklasl]
Same as ex:nameOf owl.inverseOf foaf:name
15:08:49 [AndyS]
ack enrico
15:09:06 [AndyS]
enrico: thought experiment
15:09:42 [AndyS]
... if we define "rdf:isReifiedBy"
15:09:52 [Souri]
q+
15:10:11 [AndyS]
... well-formedness gives the intent on position.
15:11:42 [thomas]
q+
15:11:51 [doerthe]
q+
15:11:59 [Souri]
q-
15:12:35 [AndyS]
thomas: not heard a use case for subject-triple terms.
15:12:59 [doerthe]
just reverse the predicate you use?
15:13:03 [AndyS]
q?
15:13:08 [AndyS]
ack thomas
15:13:17 [AndyS]
ack doerthe
15:13:38 [AndyS]
doerthe: to Souri
15:13:57 [AndyS]
... rdf:reifies is a property which can be reversed.
15:14:29 [niklasl]
Is that an argument for also allowing literals in the subject position too?
15:14:57 [AndyS]
... could define it specially but then it have sub-property
15:15:07 [AndyS]
... to thomas
15:15:12 [niklasl]
q+
15:15:25 [Souri]
rdf:type does not have an inverse defined in RDF, rdf:reifies/rdf:states could be treated similarly
15:15:32 [AndyS]
... I agree with Enrico - subject is not special compared to object
15:16:00 [AndyS]
q?
15:17:13 [AndyS]
ack niklasl
15:17:39 [AndyS]
niklasl: one last thing - there is nothing special about the subject
15:17:48 [AndyS]
... it is wellformedness that is important
15:18:11 [AndyS]
... for me, it is the affordance of the graph
15:18:21 [AndyS]
... an ergonomic argument
15:18:24 [enrico]
q+
15:18:43 [AndyS]
ack enrico
15:18:56 [doerthe]
it makes people using triple terms less?
15:19:04 [AndyS]
enrico: this is what I mean by object oriented thinking.
15:19:35 [niklasl]
Yes doerthe
15:20:09 [Souri]
terms used as objects today can be more complex than subject, so we keep subject simple like today by allowing this complex thing -- triple-term -- to be only in the object position
15:20:23 [doerthe]
ok
15:20:29 [doerthe]
that point I get
15:21:44 [AndyS]
gkellogg: three cases:
15:22:17 [niklasl]
And yes to Souri, I think like that too.
15:22:25 [AndyS]
... fill unrestricted syntax - triple terms in subject position
15:22:37 [Souri]
from an implementation point of view=> parsers today have a complex logic for recognizing objects, so we just increase the complexity a bit more there to recognize triple-terms -- this allows subject parsing to stay simple
15:22:59 [AndyS]
... RDF concepts current restricts triple terms to object position
15:23:28 [AndyS]
... wellformed - only use with "rdf:reifies triple term"
15:23:40 [AndyS]
q?
15:24:33 [thomas]
q+
15:24:36 [doerthe]
so, you have an implementation argument here, Souri? That is something I would have to trust you on, but you really think it would be far more complex to program?
15:25:26 [AndyS]
At the terminals level, nothing is content sensitive.
15:25:40 [AndyS]
SourI: argues for simple parsing.
15:26:17 [gkellogg]
q+
15:26:34 [AndyS]
ack thomas
15:26:51 [AndyS]
thomas: update on rdf:states
15:27:17 [AndyS]
ack gkellogg
15:27:44 [AndyS]
gkellogg: further implication of subject usage. If possible, people will use it.
15:27:53 [doerthe]
thank you for answering Souri (I like to understand all pints of view :) )
15:28:10 [AndyS]
s/pints/points/
15:28:19 [enrico]
🍺
15:28:56 [AndyS]
q+
15:29:20 [AndyS]
enrico: implementations reflect an object-oriented POV
15:29:53 [gkellogg]
ack AndyS
15:30:10 [AndyS]
rrsagent, please publish minutes
15:30:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/09-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS
15:30:26 [doerthe]
... wishful thinking, Enrico ;)
15:51:13 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:03:38 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:14:15 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:34:02 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:52:20 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:00:57 [pfps]
pfps has left #rdf-star
17:02:11 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:20:30 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:32:29 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:43:54 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:13:09 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:30:42 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:38:10 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:56:12 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:15:33 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:33:40 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:03:25 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:03:28 [gkellogg_]
gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-star
20:07:56 [gkellogg_]
s/fill unrestricted syntax/full unrestricted syntax/
20:08:47 [gkellogg_]
rrsagent, draft minutes
20:08:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/09-rdf-star-minutes.html gkellogg_