IRC log of rdf-star on 2024-08-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:58:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:58:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-irc
15:58:24 [TallTed]
meeting: RDF-star WG biweekly meeting
15:58:32 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:58:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:58:36 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:58:59 [Dominik_T]
Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
15:59:03 [TallTed]
previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/08/23-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:59:03 [TallTed]
next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/08/30-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:59:15 [olaf]
olaf has joined #rdf-star
15:59:24 [TallTed]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/348e384e-2c0d-4c88-bb5c-5ddddf93ef4d/20240829T120000/
15:59:24 [enrico]
enrico has joined #rdf-star
15:59:24 [agendabot]
clear agenda
15:59:24 [agendabot]
agenda+ Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/15-rdf-star-minutes.html , -> 2 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/22-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:59:24 [agendabot]
agenda+ Proposed resultion by Semantics TF -> 3 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/23-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:59:25 [agendabot]
agenda+ Proposal for next week's discussion
15:59:30 [agendabot]
agenda+ Review of pull requests, available at -> 4 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4
15:59:31 [agendabot]
agenda+ Issue Triage, available at -> 5 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/5
15:59:34 [agendabot]
agenda+ Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
15:59:34 [enrico]
present+
15:59:45 [Dominik_T]
present+
15:59:45 [TallTed]
present+
15:59:50 [niklasl]
niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:00:02 [tl]
present+
16:00:06 [eBremer]
present+
16:00:23 [rubenswo_]
present+
16:00:26 [niklasl]
present+
16:00:44 [gtw]
present+
16:00:46 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:00:55 [william_vw]
william_vw has joined #rdf-star
16:01:19 [gkellogg]
present+
16:01:22 [gkellogg]
scribe+
16:01:36 [olaf]
present+
16:01:41 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:01:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:01:53 [gkellogg]
zakim, agenda?
16:01:53 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
16:01:54 [Zakim]
1. Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/15-rdf-star-minutes.html , -> 2 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/22-rdf-star-minutes.html [from
16:01:54 [Zakim]
... agendabot]
16:01:54 [Zakim]
2. Proposed resultion by Semantics TF -> 3 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/23-rdf-star-minutes.html [from agendabot]
16:01:54 [Zakim]
3. Proposal for next week's discussion [from agendabot]
16:01:58 [Zakim]
4. Review of pull requests, available at -> 4 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4 [from agendabot]
16:01:58 [Zakim]
5. Issue Triage, available at -> 5 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/5 [from agendabot]
16:01:58 [Zakim]
6. Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting [from agendabot]
16:02:23 [AndyS]
present+
16:02:46 [ora]
ora has joined #rdf-star
16:02:51 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:02:54 [gkellogg]
zakim, next agendum
16:02:54 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/15-rdf-star-minutes.html , -> 2 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/22-rdf-star-minutes.html --
16:02:57 [Zakim]
... taken up [from agendabot]
16:03:01 [pfps]
present+
16:03:24 [ora]
present+
16:03:34 [Adrian]
Adrian has joined #rdf-star
16:03:42 [Adrian]
Present+
16:03:45 [gkellogg]
ora: Approval of minutes
16:04:04 [william_vw]
present+
16:04:07 [ora]
q?
16:04:23 [Adrian]
Adrian has joined #rdf-star
16:04:35 [ora]
PROPOSAL: Approve last two weeks' minutes
16:04:39 [enrico]
+1
16:04:39 [ora]
+1
16:04:40 [niklasl]
+1
16:04:41 [eBremer]
+1
16:04:41 [AndyS]
+1
16:04:42 [tl]
+1
16:04:42 [william_vw]
+1
16:04:42 [gkellogg]
+1
16:04:43 [fsasaki]
fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
16:04:43 [Adrian]
+1
16:04:43 [gtw]
+1
16:04:46 [TallTed]
+1
16:04:47 [rubenswo_]
+1
16:04:49 [olaf]
+1
16:04:53 [Dominik_T]
+1
16:04:55 [pfps]
+1
16:04:58 [fsasaki]
+1
16:05:03 [fsasaki]
present+
16:05:11 [ora]
RESOLVED: Approve last two weeks' minutes
16:05:15 [gkellogg]
zakim, next item
16:05:15 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Proposed resultion by Semantics TF -> 3 https://www.w3.org/2024/08/23-rdf-star-minutes.html -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:05:24 [rubensworks]
rubensworks has joined #rdf-star
16:05:27 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:05:33 [Souri]
present+
16:05:36 [rubensworks]
present+
16:06:13 [gkellogg]
enrico: There was a proposal to simplify the well-formed fragment so that it is not needed.
16:07:02 [gkellogg]
... Whenever there is a triple who's object is a triple term the semantics say that the predicate is of type rdf:ReificationProperty.
16:07:56 [gkellogg]
... This makes the system flexible, as in Turtle there is a short-cut to introduce a reifier with a triple term without mentioning the predicate, so there will be an rdf:reifies predicate coming from that expansion.
16:08:09 [enrico]
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22alternative-baseline%22
16:08:15 [gkellogg]
... I fixed the semantics baseline to deal with thils.
16:08:19 [ora]
q+
16:08:42 [ora]
ack ora
16:08:44 [gkellogg]
... The new version of the baseline gets rid of the well-formed semantics.
16:08:45 [Adrian]
Adrian has joined #rdf-star
16:08:56 [enrico]
q+
16:09:02 [gkellogg]
ora: What does this buy us. And, what are the downsides of this?
16:09:08 [ora]
ack ora
16:09:10 [ora]
ack enrico
16:09:24 [gkellogg]
enrico: It means we don't need a well-formed syntax; you can write whatever you want.
16:09:39 [gkellogg]
... It also introduces the notion that triple terms only make sense in the object position.
16:10:07 [gkellogg]
... It maintains the "do whatever you want" philosophy of RDF, although it will have some meaning.
16:10:41 [gkellogg]
ora: If I use something which is not a property, I get nonsense.
16:10:59 [gkellogg]
enrico: You get a warning, as among the entailed triples you get something that does not sound correct.e
16:11:29 [gkellogg]
... This is typical with reasoning. You might derive something from your knowledge that is wrong, which means you need to go back and fix it.
16:11:56 [gkellogg]
... The entailment is interesting when you ask why something is an interest of rdf:ReificationProperty.
16:12:05 [ora]
q+
16:12:13 [ora]
ack ora
16:12:24 [gkellogg]
... The idea is that people will just use the short-cut, so it will always make sense.
16:12:39 [gkellogg]
ora: Should we add something saying that implementations are free to warn the user.
16:12:51 [gkellogg]
enrico: It's an entailment, so you assume that users mean what they say.
16:13:22 [gkellogg]
ora: This is in line with our earlier thinking; if you do something that's not okay you get something out which is not okay.
16:13:38 [gkellogg]
q?
16:14:06 [enrico]
Any IRI used as the predicate of a triple whose object is a triple term denotes an instance of the denotation of rdf:ReificationProperty.
16:14:19 [gkellogg]
enrico: This is what we voted on last Friday.
16:14:24 [william_vw]
q+
16:14:43 [ora]
ack william_vw
16:15:00 [gkellogg]
william_vw: Is ReificationProperty a sub-property of rdf:Property?
16:15:16 [gkellogg]
enrico: Yes. The modeling parts are discussed at the end.
16:15:47 [pfps]
Remember that subclass and subproperty in RDF need to be stated - they never arise because of subset relationships
16:16:27 [gkellogg]
william_vw: I was talking with Doerte and she made the point that you can always infer that any object of ReificationProperty, as it is a sub-property of rdf:Property, you can infer that a property :x is used in a triple with a triple term.
16:16:39 [pchampin]
q+
16:16:57 [gkellogg]
enrico: We may have something to fix.
16:17:04 [gkellogg]
... In principle, this should not happen.
16:17:29 [gkellogg]
ora: Do you want to fix this before we vote on it?
16:17:35 [gkellogg]
enrico: I'll let you know.
16:17:50 [ora]
ack pchampin
16:18:10 [gkellogg]
pchampin: I may be misunderstanding, but I don't think that issue ...
16:18:33 [gkellogg]
... My understand that ReificationPropery is a sub-class of rdf:Property. Not a sub-property of anything.
16:18:54 [enrico]
q+
16:19:03 [gkellogg]
... There may be a question if every reification property is a sub-property of rdf:refies, but not necessarily.
16:19:18 [AndyS]
s/that issue/there is an issue/
16:19:19 [ora]
ack enrico
16:19:28 [gkellogg]
... That doesn't man that the presense of a property used with a triple term would entail some other property.
16:19:55 [gkellogg]
enrico: In RDF simple entailment, we use classes and instances of classes. This does not say anything about sub-properties.
16:19:59 [niklasl]
+1 rdf:ReificationProperty rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property .
16:20:26 [gkellogg]
william_vw: But, it's not the case that everything needs to be a sub-property of rdf:Property?
16:20:52 [niklasl]
q+
16:21:00 [gkellogg]
enrico: :s :p <<(...))>>> does not imply :p a sub-property of rdf:refies.
16:21:10 [ora]
ack niklasl
16:21:25 [gkellogg]
william_vw: I thought that everything in the property position can be inferred to be a sub-class of rdf:Property.
16:21:26 [pchampin]
I think that William confuses rdf:Propety with owl:topObjectProperty / owl:DataProperty
16:21:41 [gkellogg]
niklasl: OWL has some other things, but RDF is simpler.
16:21:52 [Souri]
Would this be allowed in a graph? ==> :x :firstName "John" . :y :firstName <<( :s :p :o )>> . (I hope not.)
16:21:53 [gtw]
q+
16:22:13 [ora]
ack gtw
16:22:16 [gkellogg]
gtw: What is the value of having this ReificationProperty?
16:22:41 [gkellogg]
... The sematantics seem to say it is entailed, but what do we get from that?
16:22:47 [tl]
https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf-schema-20140225/#ch_property
16:22:53 [gkellogg]
enrico: You don't get anything, but it suggests that such a property is a ReificationProperty.
16:22:58 [gkellogg]
gtw: Why do it then?
16:23:09 [gkellogg]
... If it doesn't mean anything.
16:23:29 [gkellogg]
enrico: All of these entailments don't mean anything, but they help with understanding the model.
16:23:36 [gkellogg]
... It helps you to debug your graph.
16:23:45 [TallTed]
Do we have an explicit draft proposal, of the thing that we might be voting on? That might help this discussion...
16:23:59 [gkellogg]
enrico: rdf:Resource is also pointless.
16:24:14 [ora]
s/rdf:Resource/rdfs:Resource
16:24:18 [gkellogg]
gtw: We're not discussing changing those things, but I don't see the value of adding this if we think it's pointless.
16:24:27 [AndyS]
rdf-semantics -- """rdfD2xxx aaa yyy .aaa rdf:type rdf:Property ."""
16:24:35 [tl]
q+
16:24:38 [gkellogg]
enrico: It does not enrich your graph semantically, but allows you to see the entailments.
16:24:58 [gkellogg]
gtw: It's not saying that everything in the domain is a triple term.
16:25:29 [gkellogg]
enrico: It's like entailment, if you compute some entailments, that are also pointless, as they are of necessity already true.
16:25:50 [gkellogg]
... This allows you to increase your trust in the graph. If you see something clearly false, you have something to fix.
16:26:17 [gkellogg]
... Entailment is pointless, because it is already true. But, when you see it you learn something about your data.
16:26:33 [ora]
ack tl
16:26:37 [gkellogg]
ora: This matches my experience. It's helpful when building tooling.
16:27:10 [william_vw]
q+
16:27:11 [gkellogg]
tl: I understood this as a guide. You can define properties with other capabilities, but this is really just documentation
16:27:17 [ora]
ack william_vw
16:27:35 [gkellogg]
william_vw: I think Souri had some reservations that I asked to be clarified.
16:27:45 [tl]
s/with other capabilities/with more specific capabilities
16:27:45 [Souri]
q+ to ask Would this be allowed in a graph? ==> :x :firstName "John" . :y :firstName <<( :s :p :o )>> . (I hope not.)
16:27:51 [ora]
ack Souri
16:27:51 [Zakim]
Souri, you wanted to ask Would this be allowed in a graph? ==> :x :firstName "John" . :y :firstName <<( :s :p :o )>> . (I hope not.)
16:27:51 [gkellogg]
... It would be more difficult to implement, and would lead to users messing up their data.
16:28:28 [gkellogg]
Souri: The original idea was to be minimal; we get a triple term who's only value is to define a reifier to talk about the triple term.
16:28:54 [gkellogg]
... When you see rdf:reifies, expect a triple term. That worked well from a minimalist point of view.
16:29:46 [gkellogg]
... when we introduce ReificationProperty, we shouldn't allow things that aren't aligned with the intention of ReificationProperty.
16:30:06 [gkellogg]
... Are we going to allow this, or not?
16:30:31 [gkellogg]
... I don't want to allow mixed use of Triple Terms.
16:31:02 [gkellogg]
... I see :firstName :John, and later <<(...)>>, it introduces a problem.
16:31:32 [gkellogg]
... If we allow any property to used, then by virtue of RDF Entailment, this causes a conflict.
16:31:48 [pchampin]
q?
16:31:49 [enrico]
q+
16:32:00 [gkellogg]
... I'm not sure we need to bring in the ReificationProperty, we only need rdf:reifies.
16:32:15 [ora]
ack enrico
16:32:18 [gkellogg]
... I'm not sure what we're getting out of it other than to find inconsistencies.
16:32:44 [tl]
q+
16:32:49 [gkellogg]
enrico: It would be more complex to impose such a restriction.
16:32:55 [pchampin]
q+
16:32:55 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:33:09 [gkellogg]
... Triple Terms can't appear elsewhere, so you need to defined a well-formed syntax.
16:33:39 [Souri]
q+
16:33:42 [gkellogg]
... It's not obvious that having an enforced syntax is simpler than using the entailments to flag misuse.
16:33:51 [ora]
ack tl
16:34:19 [fsasaki]
q+
16:34:27 [gtw]
q+ to mention that RDF 1.0-style reification will make any restriction on rdf:reificationProperty difficult due to rdf:object
16:34:35 [gkellogg]
tl: I think it's necessary to define an extension point for triple terms and rdf:reifies. If the group doesn't support asserts/states, then I would be in favor of the ReificationProperty.
16:35:03 [gkellogg]
... I am for prohibiting triple terms in the subject position, but not for other hard restrictions.
16:35:05 [ora]
ack pchampin
16:35:36 [gkellogg]
pchampin: Souri's concerns reminds me of another discrepancy: that with literals.
16:36:05 [gkellogg]
... Some implementations recognize xsd:integer and will reject literals that are invalid.
16:36:18 [gkellogg]
... But, the abstract data model allows them to be stated.
16:36:38 [gkellogg]
... The same can occur with ReificationProperty.
16:37:06 [gkellogg]
... We already use this type of flexibility unconsciously; the reasoning holds here too.
16:37:28 [gkellogg]
... By not insisting on well-formedness this allows some implementations to be more strict.
16:37:43 [ora]
ack Souri
16:37:46 [gkellogg]
ora: Not quite ready to vote on now.
16:38:06 [gkellogg]
Souri: My phylosophy is that if you give people too much freedom, they will mess up.
16:38:23 [gkellogg]
... People will try to do things that don't make sense.
16:38:45 [gkellogg]
... Unless there is a substantial benefit, it may be better to not allow it to be stated.
16:39:04 [gkellogg]
... If we have rdf:reifies, we can do anything with the reifier, including to give it a type.
16:39:21 [gkellogg]
... The rdf:reifies hook gives us the ability ...
16:39:31 [ora]
ack fsasaki
16:39:41 [ora]
ack gtw
16:39:41 [Zakim]
gtw, you wanted to mention that RDF 1.0-style reification will make any restriction on rdf:reificationProperty difficult due to rdf:object
16:39:43 [gkellogg]
fsasaki: I agree with Souri
16:40:06 [gkellogg]
gtw: In RDF 1.0 reification, it would be hard to do these sorts of restrictions.
16:40:29 [gkellogg]
... I don't see the value in ReificationProperty.
16:41:04 [gkellogg]
... It would be unfortunate if we got to the point where we said it was okay to violate such restrictions.
16:41:09 [TallTed]
Please, please, can the agenda (and mailing list) include explicit text of proposal(s) on which we aim to vote? A link to a complete page of meeting minutes doesn't help advance prep much if at all.
16:41:32 [gkellogg]
ora: People should think about this.
16:41:35 [gkellogg]
zakim, next item
16:41:35 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Proposal for next week's discussion -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:41:56 [tl]
q+
16:41:58 [AndyS]
q+
16:42:01 [ora]
ack tl
16:42:01 [gkellogg]
ora: Anything else to discuss next week?
16:42:11 [gkellogg]
tl: I'd like to discuss rdf:stated/asserted.
16:42:16 [ora]
ack AndyS
16:42:29 [enrico]
q+
16:42:41 [AndyS]
Is there anything we need to do for TPAC?
16:43:08 [ora]
ack enrico
16:43:14 [gkellogg]
ora: Another good discussion for next week; what do we want to accomplish at TPAC?
16:43:36 [tl]
s/rdf:stated/rdf:states
16:43:43 [gkellogg]
enrico: Another thing related to ReificationProperty is the unrestricted nature of RDF, and if triple terms should be restricted from being used in the subject position.
16:43:55 [tl]
s/rdf:asserted/rdf:asserts
16:44:35 [gkellogg]
ora: We can continue with today's discussion and get into some of these other issues.
16:45:08 [niklasl]
q+
16:45:12 [ora]
ack niklasl
16:45:13 [gkellogg]
... I don't think we need to vote on these, as they are clear discussion topics.
16:45:36 [gkellogg]
niklasl: I think the detail about naming the range of rdf:reifies is baked into the discussion.
16:45:46 [gkellogg]
zakim, next ite
16:45:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'next ite', gkellogg
16:45:50 [gkellogg]
zakim, next item
16:45:50 [Zakim]
agendum 4 -- Review of pull requests, available at -> 4 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:46:23 [gkellogg]
ora: There are several editorial things.
16:46:26 [AndyS]
q+
16:46:32 [niklasl]
niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:46:35 [gkellogg]
... It would be nice if we could see how long things have been open.
16:46:39 [rubensworks]
q+
16:47:01 [ora]
ack AndyS
16:47:08 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:47:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:47:35 [ora]
ack rubensworks
16:47:48 [gkellogg]
gkellogg: plan to merge w3c/rdf-turtle#62 after the meeting.
16:47:49 [gb]
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/pull/62 -> Pull Request 62 Add processor state, term constructor, and triple constructors. Change reifiedTriple to reifingTriple. (by gkellogg) [spec:editorial]
16:48:03 [gkellogg]
rubensworks: It's 4, 5, and 6 are all the same and has good agreement.
16:48:28 [gkellogg]
... There are several about migrating from quoted triples to triple terms/reifiers which have good reviews.
16:48:37 [gkellogg]
... I think they can all be merged.
16:48:46 [gkellogg]
... Including Andy's update to the SPARQL grammar.
16:49:29 [gkellogg]
ora: No objections heard. General agreement that all open PRs can be merged.
16:49:39 [pchampin]
s|4|https://github.com/w3c/sparql-protocol/pull/28
16:49:51 [pchampin]
s|5|https://github.com/w3c/sparql-update/pull/40
16:49:52 [gkellogg]
AndyS: I think it's important to get the grammar in.
16:50:22 [gkellogg]
gkellogg: I think w3c/rdf-tests#135 needs to be merged.
16:50:22 [gb]
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/pull/135 -> Pull Request 135 Updates Turtle tests to use triple term syntax and reifications (by gkellogg) [enhancement] [Turtle]
16:50:31 [pchampin]
s|and 6|and https://github.com/w3c/sparql-service-description/pull/27
16:50:43 [pchampin]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:50:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
16:50:50 [gkellogg]
AndyS: It's a bit more complex. It depends on what the expectations are.
16:51:37 [gkellogg]
gkellogg: I'd rather merge sooner rather than later.
16:51:52 [Adrian]
Chair: ora
16:51:58 [gkellogg]
AndyS: I wanted to point out that people may not have implementations ready to do good validation.
16:52:05 [ora]
q?
16:52:06 [gkellogg]
ora: I agree, lets merge.
16:52:25 [gkellogg]
zakim, next item
16:52:25 [Zakim]
agendum 5 -- Issue Triage, available at -> 5 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/5 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:52:56 [gkellogg]
ora: we're almost out of time, but I urge people to examine open issues to see what they may want to work on.
16:53:02 [Adrian]
Q+
16:53:22 [gkellogg]
... We can pick up some of these items in due course, maybe at TPAC.
16:53:29 [ora]
ack Adrian
16:53:48 [gkellogg]
ktk: I think we want to spend some time together to go through the lists.
16:54:08 [gkellogg]
zakim, next item
16:54:08 [Zakim]
agendum 6 -- Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:54:25 [gkellogg]
ktk: we have a couple of new members, although they're not on the call.
16:54:47 [pchampin]
q+
16:54:58 [ora]
ack pchampin
16:55:27 [gkellogg]
pchampin: University of Oxford joined with Ian Horricks.
16:55:52 [gkellogg]
ora: Oxford Semantics was just acquired by Samsung.
16:56:18 [tl]
s/Horricks/Horrocks
16:56:25 [Adrian]
Adrian has joined #rdf-star
16:56:58 [gkellogg]
Julian: [introductory comments]
16:57:02 [gkellogg]
ora: Welcome!
16:57:28 [TallTed]
yes, Samsung is W3C member -- https://www.w3.org/membership/list/?initial=s&ecosystem=network-communications
16:57:44 [pchampin]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:57:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
16:58:05 [gkellogg]
TallTed: It would be helpful if we could have explicit proposals for what we're voting on, not pointers to discussions.
16:58:25 [gkellogg]
zakim, end meeting.
16:58:25 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been enrico, Dominik_T, TallTed, tl, eBremer, rubenswo_, niklasl, gtw, gkellogg, olaf, AndyS, pfps, ora, Adrian, william_vw, fsasaki, Souri,
16:58:25 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:58:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:58:32 [Zakim]
... rubensworks
16:58:32 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:58:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim
16:58:38 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, gkellogg; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
16:58:38 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-star
17:01:42 [pchampin]
s|https://github.com/w3c/sparql-protocol/pull/28,|https://github.com/w3c/sparql-protocol/pull/28 ,
17:01:53 [pchampin]
s|https://github.com/w3c/sparql-update/pull/40,|https://github.com/w3c/sparql-update/pull/40 ,
17:01:55 [pchampin]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:01:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:04:43 [pchampin]
s|rubensworks: It's|rubensworks:
17:04:45 [pchampin]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:04:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:06:08 [pchampin]
s|[introductory comments]|I'm a PhD student at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. I have already worked with RDF-star.
17:06:09 [pchampin]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:06:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:19:01 [gkellogg_]
gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-star
18:23:18 [william_vw]
william_vw has joined #rdf-star
19:40:57 [gkellogg_]
s/why something is an interest/why something is an inferrence/
19:42:07 [gkellogg_]
s/ ReificationProperty/ rdf: ReificationProperty/g
19:42:43 [gkellogg_]
rrsagent, generate minutes
19:42:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-minutes.html gkellogg_
19:43:19 [gkellogg_]
s/ReificationPropery/rdf:ReificationProperty/g
19:45:58 [gkellogg_]
s/rdf: ReificationProperty/rdf:ReificationProperty/g
19:47:05 [gkellogg_]
s| rdf:states/asserted| rdf:states/rdf:asserts|
19:48:19 [gkellogg_]
rrsagent, generate minutes
19:48:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-minutes.html gkellogg_
19:49:13 [gkellogg_]
s|<tl> s/rdf:asserted/rdf:asserts||
19:49:16 [gkellogg_]
rrsagent, generate minutes
19:49:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/08/29-rdf-star-minutes.html gkellogg_
19:49:36 [gkellogg_]
rrsagent, bye
19:49:36 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items