15:58:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:58:10 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/08/22-rdf-star-irc
15:58:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:58:11 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
15:58:51 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:58:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/22-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:59:01 <TallTed> gb, status?
15:59:01 <gb> TallTed, the delay is 15, issues are on, names are off, full issues are printed 10 at a time; and the repositories are https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg https://github.com/w3c/rdf-common https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-quads https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples
15:59:01 <gb> … https://github.com/w3c/rdf-new https://github.com/w3c/rdf-primer https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics https://github.com/w3c/rdf-trig https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr https://github.com/w3c/rdf-xml https://github.com/w3c/sparql-
15:59:02 <gb> … concepts https://github.com/w3c/sparql-entailment https://github.com/w3c/sparql-federated-query https://github.com/w3c/sparql-graph-store-protocol https://github.com/w3c/sparql-new https://github.com/w3c/sparql-protocol https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query https://github.com/w3c/sparql-results-
15:59:05 <gb> … csv-tsv https://github.com/w3c/sparql-results-json
15:59:06 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
15:59:28 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
15:59:31 <TallTed> present+
15:59:56 <niklasl> present+
16:00:03 <olaf> present+
16:00:09 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/08/16-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:00:09 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/08/23-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:00:12 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:00:15 <ora> present+
16:00:18 <tl> present+
16:00:19 <ora> chair: ora
16:00:21 <gkellogg> present+
16:00:21 <pchampin> pchampin has changed the topic to: RDF-star WG — 2024-08-22  — https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/2d6cdae9-7c4f-4fb7-93ce-35e2f579edc7/20240822T080000/#agenda
16:00:22 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
16:01:04 <olaf> scribe+
16:01:09 <fsasaki> present+
16:01:10 <gtw> present+
16:01:11 <AndyS> present+
16:01:15 <Tpt> present+
16:01:16 <pchampin> present+
16:01:31 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF-star WG — 2024-08-22  — https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/23bcb331-af6e-40af-98f1-11c029455d12/20240822T120000/
16:01:49 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
16:02:10 <olaf> ora: Topic today is discussion about profiles
16:02:23 <olaf> ... apologies for not getting my email out until yesterday
16:02:26 <enrico> present+
16:02:39 <olaf> ... anyways, I had some questions in that email
16:02:39 <TallTed> scribe-
16:02:45 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:02:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/22-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:03:15 <olaf> ... the fourth of these questions came to my mind only recently:
16:03:30 <olaf> ... what are the implementation ramifications of the choices?
16:03:36 <TallTed> i/ora: Topic today is discussion about profiles/topic: discussion about profiles
16:03:42 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:03:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/22-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:03:56 <enrico> q+
16:04:04 <olaf> ... How much implementation experience do we have in the group?
16:04:07 <william_vw> william_vw has joined #rdf-star
16:04:09 <ora> ack enrico
16:04:38 <olaf> enrico: I replied to your email with material regarding the first three questions in your email.
16:04:55 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:04:56 <olaf> ... I believe we should have a best practice -- not a profile
16:05:01 <Souri> present+
16:05:36 <olaf> ... Defining an LPG profile with functionality of rdf:reifies makes is loose
16:05:59 <olaf> ... the option to define simple entailment using pattern matching
16:06:36 <olaf> ... My opinion, using a syntactic condition / restriction, should be good enough.
16:07:13 <olaf> ... Of course, round tripping with LPG is not possible.
16:07:21 <olaf> ora: sure, no round tripping
16:07:33 <olaf> ... okay, syntactic restriction is good
16:07:54 <olaf> ... what worried me was that people could not build reasoners
16:08:15 <olaf> enrico: With a syntactic restriction, the reasoners work.
16:08:34 <olaf> ... any entailment over this fragment remains in this fragment.
16:08:40 <olaf> ora: even better
16:09:18 <olaf> ... Then, my fourth question (implementation-related ramifications)
16:09:35 <olaf> ... Does anyone here implementation experiences with this stuff?
16:09:47 <pchampin> q+
16:09:55 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
16:10:00 <eBremer> present+
16:10:36 <olaf> Souri: We have only done prototyping. Still waiting for the finalization of this groups' work.
16:11:00 <olaf> ora: We have OpenCypher over RDF now (modulo blank nodes).
16:11:21 <olaf> ... The main issues there were more about OpenCypher tooling (parsers etc)
16:11:51 <olaf> Souri: We have experience with translating relational DB to RDF.
16:12:12 <olaf> ... e.g., with R2RML
16:12:36 <olaf> ... where each primary key ends up as a reifier
16:12:54 <olaf> ... example with 'employed' table
16:14:11 <olaf> ... 'employed' table plays two roles
16:14:32 <olaf> ... one, to contain one row per employee
16:15:09 <olaf> ... two, same row to capture the relationship of the employee to their department
16:15:24 <olaf> ... and he relationship to their supervisor
16:15:27 <AndyS> q?
16:15:30 <olaf> s/he/the
16:15:51 <olaf> ... That situation was a surprise to me.
16:16:06 <ora> ack pchampin
16:16:25 <olaf> ... i.e., case where the primary key cannot become the subject but must become a reifier
16:17:05 <olaf> pchampin: regarding the baseline that we have, it is not very different regarding the abstract syntax
16:17:27 <olaf> ... compared to the CG version of RDF-star
16:17:36 <tl> q+
16:17:38 <olaf> ... and there exists implementation experience for that
16:18:07 <ora> ack tl
16:18:07 <olaf> ... This impl.experience can serve as an input for the discussion.
16:18:23 <olaf> tl: I wrote an email asking what the problem is.
16:18:51 <olaf> ... I was trying to explore what the difficulty would be with the many-to-many option
16:19:15 <olaf> ... I came up with three cases and didn't see a problem with any of them.
16:19:41 <olaf> ... My question then is whether it is really necessary to take away this option.
16:20:07 <olaf> ... You have to look through my examples.
16:20:07 <AndyS> +1 to pchampin on implementation. More impact because of initial text direction.
16:20:25 <olaf> ... Do you have an example of data that gave you a problem?
16:20:40 <olaf> ora: Edge properties.
16:21:15 <olaf> ... We wanted to understand what the RDF-star correspondence for them is.
16:22:06 <olaf> ... Issue when mapping from RDF to LPG in case of many-to-many.
16:22:54 <olaf> tl: Only problem that I see is if you have a many-to-many annotation where the annotation is for the whole group of triples.
16:23:09 <gkellogg> q+
16:23:31 <olaf> ora: Other question now. What do we think, more generally, about the idea of profiles?
16:23:32 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:24:02 <olaf> gkellogg: Maybe it is premature to specify this. We don't have enough experience with it.
16:24:13 <tl> examples of many-to-many situations and how they might translate to LPG edges: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Aug/0043.html
16:24:27 <olaf> ... We may instead have member submissions first.
16:24:34 <ora> q+
16:25:21 <olaf> ora: My understanding of what you say is that we would leave the door open for profiles that might emerge. That makes sense to me.
16:25:22 <ora> ack ora
16:25:39 <enrico> q+
16:26:02 <olaf> ... Then, people may perhaps even come up with other ideas for possible profiles that make sense.
16:26:15 <tl> maybe write a Note that discusses LPG interoperability
16:26:19 <ora> ack enrico
16:26:51 <olaf> enrico: Generalizing this discussion of profile, we still leave open the question of what the syntax of simple RDF is.
16:27:48 <olaf> ... Do we want to have a distinction based on specific syntactic restriction? e.g., triple terms only in object position of rdf:reifies triples
16:28:35 <olaf> ... In terms of semantics, an additional question is whether we want to add rdf:asserts.
16:29:13 <niklasl> q+
16:29:22 <ora> ack niklasl
16:29:35 <olaf> ora: Okay, I got my questions for today answered. We may thus move on to talk about rdf:asserts and the likes
16:30:06 <olaf> niklasl: Before we move on, I have a question about the Amazon implementation and graph query languages.
16:30:30 <olaf> ... Can one see the edge ID in such languages?
16:31:33 <olaf> ... If not, perhaps you wouldn't see the whole RDF side when querying with Cypher.
16:32:02 <olaf> ora: We had lots of discussions regarding such RDF views when using Cypher.
16:32:33 <olaf> ... and there might be loss of the projections.
16:33:18 <Souri> q+
16:33:32 <olaf> ... Round tripping RDF -> 1G -> RDF without loss, same for LPG -> 1G -> LPG. But potential loss for RDF -> 1G -> LPG or vice versa.
16:34:08 <olaf> ... From our experience in the context of OpenCypher over RDF, some developers will never touch SPARQL.
16:34:41 <ora> ack Souri
16:34:47 <olaf> ... Still use cases about combining an LPG and an RDF graph.
16:35:32 <olaf> Souri: What situation did you have where an LPG cannot be translated to RDF 1.1 (using RDF reification)?
16:35:53 <olaf> ora: Other observation was that none wanted to touch RDF reification.
16:36:18 <olaf> ... (none of the customers)
16:36:53 <olaf> Souri: Same experience. Customers don't want to touch SPARQL. Customers want edge properties.
16:37:49 <olaf> ... Other reason for picking LPG is the lack of proper path queries in SPARQL.
16:38:09 <olaf> ora: Limitation of LPG is that there is no schema language.
16:38:40 <olaf> ... related pondering about how to bring RDF-star into ontology language
16:39:08 <AndyS> q+
16:39:15 <ora> ack AndyS
16:39:20 <william_vw> q+
16:39:54 <olaf> AndyS: Where are we now regarding the LPG profile? Are you okay to have it outside the core specs?
16:40:10 <gtw> q+
16:40:45 <olaf> ... Personally, I prefer outside of specs, before we don't have so much experience with all this stuff.
16:41:26 <ora> ack gtw
16:43:56 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:44:01 <olaf> present+
16:44:03 <olaf> scribe+
16:44:05 <olaf> gtw: To the point that we don't have impl.experience regarding this stuff, the same issue holds also about implementations of the many-to-many option.
16:44:23 <olaf> ora: The same issue existed in the first RDF WG.
16:44:56 <olaf> AndyS: Experience from SPARQL is that the first version can be more risk-taking.
16:45:23 <fsasaki> q+
16:45:44 <olaf> ora: But that's not how standardizing traditionally works.
16:45:59 <ora> ack fsasaki
16:46:32 <olaf> fsasaki: To gtw's point, the W3C process requires implementations.
16:46:33 <ora> ack william_vw
16:46:56 <olaf> william_vw: Now to the rdf:asserts topic.
16:47:07 <olaf> ... I had a lot of questions there.
16:47:36 <olaf> ... Tried to get more information on the mailing list.
16:47:39 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
16:48:10 <olaf> ... Souri, do you have an RDB to RDF mapping? Can you elaborate on it?
16:48:39 <olaf> Souri: Miss-understood someone else's proposal.
16:48:57 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
16:48:58 <olaf> ... I tried arguing more on the independence.
16:49:26 <fsasaki> s/implementations/implementations in the candidate recommendation process step, so there is still an opportunity to gather and document implementation experience and revise the many to many feature/
16:49:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/22-rdf-star-minutes.html fsasaki
16:49:45 <olaf> ... Truth and hypothesis is at a very basic level that may cover a lot of cases.
16:50:33 <olaf> ... in RDF, a triple is a small unit (only three elements), which is different form RDB
16:50:59 <olaf> ... I wanted ID to be integrated into SPO
16:51:16 <olaf> ... Such that it can have a truth value.
16:51:29 <olaf> ... without having to add an extra triple.
16:51:50 <olaf> ... which also avoids extra triple patterns in SPARQL queries.
16:52:18 <tl> q+
16:52:26 <olaf> ... To the question of leaving things out of the standard now, I am worried that adding such things later takes years
16:52:41 <olaf> ... in the meantime people will start doing their own thing.
16:52:43 <pchampin> q+ to point out that we have chosen the "living standard" mode
16:53:24 <olaf> william_vw: So, any meaning becomes application dependant.
16:54:13 <ora> ack tl
16:54:14 <olaf> ... It was unclear to me why you focused specifically on these particular meanings mentioned in your emails.
16:54:36 <william_vw> william_vw has joined #rdf-star
16:54:48 <olaf> tl: Very binary consideration whether triple is true or not.
16:55:25 <olaf> ... Asserted or not is essential and belongs into the spec. Everything else can be application specific meanings.
16:55:42 <niklasl> q+
16:56:20 <olaf> ... Annotations syntax is currently mapped to rdf:reifies, which is a mismatch. It should be mapped to rdf:asserts
16:56:33 <ora> ack pchampin
16:56:33 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to point out that we have chosen the "living standard" mode
16:56:42 <olaf> ... We are really defining something there, and we are currently doing it in the wrong way.
16:57:28 <ora> ack niklasl
16:57:39 <olaf> pchampin: Just to point out that we chose to leave the spec open as a living standard. hence, adding new features would not be as long and tedious as several years.
16:58:00 <Tpt> q+ on writing a note
16:58:09 <olaf> niklasl: I wrote emails half an hour before the meeting.
16:58:54 <olaf> ... I don't see the problem. My example should show that.
16:59:09 <william_vw> william_vw has joined #rdf-star
16:59:34 <olaf> ... We might talk about it tomorrow in the SemTF
16:59:43 <ora> ack Tpt
16:59:43 <Zakim> Tpt, you wanted to comment on writing a note
17:00:01 <olaf> Tpt: We can just write a Note if we are not confident adding something into the standard.
17:00:56 <olaf> enrico: We have a SemTF meeting tomorrow. We can talk about ... (?)
17:01:25 <olaf> ... I made the point that we have had infinite discussion. The WG should make a decision.
17:02:08 <olaf> Tallted: Asking that everything to be voted on will be put on the mailing list in good time, with precise definitions.
17:02:10 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:02:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/22-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:03:07 <pchampin> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/23bcb331-af6e-40af-98f1-11c029455d12/20240822T120000/#agenda
17:03:07 <agendabot> clear agenda
17:03:07 <agendabot> agenda+ General discussion about profiles (esp. "LPG-profile"), what's possible, what's not, caveats/pitfalls  -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/15-rdf-star-minutes.html#t02
17:03:16 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star WG focused meeting
17:03:23 <pchampin> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:03:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/22-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:07:41 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
17:25:35 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:34:08 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:50:21 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:05:43 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:24:57 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:48:21 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:16:26 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:40:21 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:08:24 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:08:27 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-star
22:24:03 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:49:56 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:29:11 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:49:05 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star