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_