13:53:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
13:53:08 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/20-rdf-star-irc
13:53:58 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-star Semantics TF
13:54:04 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:54:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/20-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
13:54:10 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:54:15 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
13:55:50 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/09/19-rdf-star-minutes.html
13:55:50 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/09/24-rdf-star-minutes.html
13:56:06 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:56:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/20-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
13:56:50 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20240920T100000/
13:56:50 <agendabot> TallTed, sorry, I did not recognize any agenda in https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20240920T100000/
13:57:13 <TallTed> scribe: not_me
13:57:26 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
13:59:20 <TallTed> present+ TallTed, tl, AndyS
13:59:20 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:59:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/20-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:00:12 <TallTed> present+ ora, pchampin
14:00:33 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
14:00:47 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:00:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/20-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:01:26 <pchampin> unfortunately I will only be able attend the 1st half-hour
14:01:26 <AndyS> present+
14:01:58 <tl> present+
14:04:20 <ora> present+
14:04:23 <ora> chair+
14:04:25 <TallTed> chair: ora
14:04:44 <william_vw> william_vw has joined #rdf-star
14:04:57 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
14:04:58 <TallTed> s/not_me/william_vw
14:05:06 <william_vw> present+
14:05:07 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:05:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/20-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:05:37 <ora> scribe: william_vw
14:05:53 <niklasl> present+
14:06:26 <william_vw> @ora should scrutenize niklasl presentation today
14:06:41 <niklasl> q+
14:06:49 <william_vw> ora already been some messages on mailing list
14:06:57 <ora> ack niklasl
14:07:11 <william_vw> niklasl split out parts on named graphs in separate slides
14:07:36 <william_vw> niklasl only introduction remains currently - around 17 slides
14:07:55 <TallTed> s/@ora/ora:/
14:08:03 <william_vw> ora my slides are more or less complete; will refer to niklasl for details
14:08:04 <TallTed> s/niklasl split/niklasl: split/
14:08:37 <TallTed> s/niklasl: only/
14:08:44 <TallTed> s/ora my/ora: my/
14:08:49 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:08:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/20-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:09:00 <william_vw> ora: should likely not copy niklasl's slides into my deck
14:09:20 <tl> q+
14:09:22 <TallTed> more detailed scribe documentation is at https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
14:09:43 <ora> ack tl
14:09:43 <william_vw> niklasl: how to cope with questions on named graphs
14:10:04 <TallTed> s/niklasl only /niklasl: only /
14:10:08 <AndyS> q+
14:10:09 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:10:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/20-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:10:16 <william_vw> tl: we've had discussions on named graphs; it's good to give an overview on status
14:10:16 <ora> ack AndyS
14:10:47 <william_vw> AndyS: niklasl still has named graph example in current slides
14:10:53 <TallTed> s/s\/niklasl: only\///
14:11:02 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:11:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/20-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:11:48 <william_vw> niklasl: will leave that example in there, just to illustrate
14:12:48 <william_vw> niklasl: keen to keep it; but, may change my mind
14:13:48 <william_vw> niklasl: I can try and rehearse the talk now
14:13:51 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
14:14:19 <Souri> present+
14:14:38 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
14:14:45 <william_vw> ora: we can individually read the slides now and then discuss
14:14:48 <tl> present+
14:16:49 <tl> https://niklasl.github.io/rdf-docs/presentations/RDF-reifiers-1/
14:16:57 <william_vw> everybody is reading https://niklasl.github.io/rdf-docs/presentations/RDF-reifiers-1/
14:17:04 <AndyS> Part 2: https://niklasl.github.io/rdf-docs/presentations/RDF-reifiers-1/graphs.html
14:17:31 <pchampin> q+ to comment on "reifiying predicate" S3
14:18:34 <ora> q+ to comment on ":source" on S14
14:19:15 <pchampin> q+ to comment on "subgraph" in S3 of part 2
14:21:06 <tl> q+ to comment on slide #7 in part 1
14:21:06 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/7 -> CLOSED Issue 7 test *again* ghurlbot configuration (by ghurlbot)
14:21:20 <william_vw> q+
14:21:35 <ora> ack pchampin
14:21:35 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to comment on "reifiying predicate" S3 and to comment on "subgraph" in S3 of part 2
14:22:39 <william_vw> pchampin slide 3; you note a reifying predicate; consider putting in quotes as the naming is still under discussion
14:23:08 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
14:23:13 <doerthe> present+
14:23:37 <TallTed> s/pchampin slide 3; you note/pchampin: on slide 3; you note/
14:23:45 <william_vw> pchampin: in second presentation, issue re reification in named graphs on slide 3
14:23:57 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:23:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/20-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:24:22 <william_vw> link for second presentation: https://niklasl.github.io/rdf-docs/presentations/RDF-reifiers-1/graphs.html
14:24:47 <ora> q?
14:24:50 <william_vw> pchampin: propose to word it differently
14:25:49 <william_vw> pchampin: would refrain from calling it a subgraph
14:26:26 <william_vw> AndyS: makes another suggestion to reword it
14:27:10 <william_vw> niklasl: will consider the suggestion
14:27:45 <ora> ack ora
14:27:45 <Zakim> ora, you wanted to comment on ":source" on S14
14:28:38 <william_vw> ora: part 1, slide 14: code has more stuff than the diagram (source)
14:28:49 <ora> ack tl
14:28:49 <Zakim> tl, you wanted to comment on slide #7 in part 1
14:28:49 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/7 -> CLOSED Issue 7 test *again* ghurlbot configuration (by ghurlbot)
14:29:17 <william_vw> tl: has fundamental issue; this is only a reifier of a possible truth ...
14:29:54 <pchampin> q+ to disagree with tl
14:29:56 <william_vw> tl: ... diagram thus needs two parts
14:30:56 <william_vw> niklasl: diagram is meant to reflect both
14:31:22 <william_vw> tl: still seems incorrect; would suit the "old" rdf*
14:31:55 <william_vw> ora: how about putting assertion first? also, replace "truth" with "assertion"
14:32:21 <william_vw> TallTed: how about just "triple"
14:32:39 <william_vw> niklasl: that would be ambiguous
14:32:51 <william_vw> ora: part of problem is that "semantics" of diagrams are unclear
14:33:12 <pchampin> well, the abstract syntax and the concrete syntax (Turtle) are pretty much figured out, so we can rely on the code in the slides.
14:33:47 <william_vw> pchampin: it's the same abstract syntax, though.
14:34:33 <william_vw> ora: idea for diagrams: if we have a reifier, always have oval around reified triple
14:34:52 <william_vw> ora: use color to indicate asserted or not
14:34:53 <pchampin> or dashed vs. solid arrows
14:35:02 <AndyS> q+
14:35:18 <pchampin> ora, you proposal breaks as soon as we have different reifiers
14:35:36 <william_vw> ora: clarify that we don't refer to to constituent parts
14:35:39 <TallTed> I think `<< :Alice :bought :LennyTheLion >> .` is problematic. It's not a statement. it's just a bare "noun".  `<< :Alice :bought :LennyTheLion >>` (no terminal `.`) is less troublesome.
14:36:17 <doerthe> +1 to TallTed
14:36:41 <william_vw> ora: if we add too much nuance, then we will lose a lot of the audience
14:37:12 <TallTed> (and `statement` might be better than `truth`/`assertion` in title of slide 7)
14:37:27 <pchampin> TallTed, doerthe, it *is* a statement, though: it says "there is a reifier for  (this triple)".
14:37:41 <william_vw> AndyS: comments on consistency of diagrams
14:38:14 <doerthe> ok pchampin, what is it syntactic sugar for then?
14:38:45 <william_vw> AndyS: unclear what reifier points to (a part of the triple)?
14:38:57 <ora> q?
14:39:01 <william_vw> q-
14:39:05 <pchampin> q-
14:39:21 <pchampin> doerthe this is equivalent to what you have in slide 5. I agree this is odd, but it does make sense
14:39:32 <tl> q+
14:39:36 <pchampin> think of it as [ rdf:reifies <<( S P O )) >>].
14:39:56 <TallTed> pchampin -- then *that* is what should be written.
14:40:34 <william_vw> niklasl: could make things even more complicated
14:40:34 <Souri> q+
14:40:36 <doerthe> ah, it is the other way around, I thought the bare triple term would be the <<...>> one, but it is the <<(...)>>
14:40:56 <pchampin> you can always replace << S P O >> with [ rdf:reifies <<( S P O )>> ]. Either on its own OR as the subject/object of another triple.
14:40:58 <doerthe> maybe something to say on the slide for others like me?
14:41:00 <william_vw> ora: perhaps accept that diagrams are more illustrative
14:41:37 <doerthe> pchampin, I understand, but mixed up the two representations
14:41:43 <TallTed> s/think of it as [ rdf:reifies <<( S P O )) >>]./think of it as [ rdf:reifies <<( S P O )>> ] ./
14:41:46 <william_vw> ora: can gloss over distinction between triple & triple term
14:42:26 <pchampin> q?
14:42:37 <william_vw> AndyS: better transition between slides 6 & 7
14:43:01 <tl> q?
14:43:34 <william_vw> I will have to leave in around 15-20 minutes as well
14:43:42 <doerthe> ok, that was bad, if PA leaves, we all go
14:44:01 <tl> will somebody restart it?
14:44:02 <TallTed> just rejoin zoom... it's because pchampin, the host, left the room.
14:46:13 <AndyS> q-
14:46:46 <ora> ack tl
14:46:58 <william_vw> tl: not satisfied with the slides for now
14:47:28 <william_vw> tl: same point as ora, i.e., have reifier point to ellipse instead of predicate
14:47:59 <william_vw> tl: this is an essential part of our solution - reifier + triple
14:48:23 <william_vw> tl: central problem = cannot refer to triple as it is asserted
14:49:21 <william_vw> tl: suggestion on transition from slide 6 to 7
14:49:59 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
14:50:06 <william_vw> ora: apart from diagram, other comments?
14:50:09 <ora> ack Souri
14:50:23 <william_vw> q+
14:51:56 <william_vw> Souri: reifier should point to the whole oval on slides 5, 6
14:52:52 <william_vw> Souri: triples are unrelated aside from the fact they share the same SPO
14:53:34 <ora> ack william_vw
14:55:17 <william_vw> william_vw: perhaps drop bullet 2 from slide 3
14:55:33 <william_vw> niklasl: will delete it from slide
14:56:46 <william_vw> niklasl: triple term is reference to propositional atom on slides
14:57:16 <william_vw> tl: should still explicate that these are 2 separate things
14:58:25 <william_vw> tl: points to fundamental disagreement on rdf:states
14:59:32 <william_vw> niklasl: will attempt to update slide 7 + verbal wording
15:00:09 <Souri> My understanding: The [] rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> triple should diagrammatically be represented as a blanknode pointing to a shaded s-p-o oval. A separate s-p-o should appear in the diagram for the asserted triple :s :p :o .
15:00:15 <doerthe> maybe do 6 and add the triple to the diagram (maybe with dotted lines)
15:00:47 <tl> Souri +1
15:02:50 <william_vw> continuing discussion on diagram representation
15:03:05 <tl> q+
15:03:48 <william_vw> ora: oval around the triple is the "triple term"
15:04:16 <william_vw> ora: e.g., dotted lines to indicate asserted nature (as doerthe said)
15:04:30 <william_vw> ora: then, no repetition needed
15:05:10 <ora> ack tl
15:05:22 <william_vw> tl: need more examples in slides
15:06:31 <Souri> The diagram in Slide 7 should ideally be: the diagram in Slide 6 + a new open s-p-o (not inside an oval). Then, we can, as a shortcut/convenience, show a compact diagram which has a non-shaded oval (or a dotted oval) to indicate it represents both the triples (shown in N-triple).
15:06:40 <william_vw> tl: not glad with one of the examples
15:07:02 <AndyS> q?
15:07:06 <niklasl> q+
15:07:18 <ora> ack niklasl
15:07:33 <william_vw> niklasl: don't want to put animations in slides
15:08:01 <william_vw> niklasl: at least, will put oval around triple on slide 7
15:09:09 <william_vw> niklasl: still want to keep visuals close to syntax
15:09:22 <AndyS> q+
15:10:17 <ora> ack AndyS
15:10:35 <william_vw> AndyS: who is the Tuesday presentation aimed at?
15:10:51 <Souri> q+
15:10:53 <william_vw> AndyS: is it open to the general public?
15:11:29 <ora> ack Souri
15:12:33 <william_vw> Souri: triple & triple term simply happen to share the same SPO on slide 7
15:12:44 <tl> Proposal for Slide 7: "Reifier of a _possible_ Truth"
15:12:48 <william_vw> Souri: so, really 2 different things
15:13:37 <william_vw> Souri: usually we combine them, but still different things
15:15:43 <william_vw> tl: simply move graphic from slide 6 to slide 7 to make separation clear
15:15:48 <william_vw> present-
15:18:30 <tl> q+
15:20:44 <tl> ack tl
15:21:03 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:21:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/20-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:32:23 <TallTed> Zakim, bye
15:32:23 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been TallTed, tl, AndyS, ora, pchampin, william_vw, niklasl, Souri, doerthe
15:32:23 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
15:32:27 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
15:32:27 <RRSAgent> I see no action items