15:45:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:45:42 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-rdf-star-irc
15:45:52 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-star Working Group
15:45:57 <TallTed> draft minutes
15:46:02 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:46:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:46:08 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:46:22 <betehess> betehess has joined #rdf-star
15:47:20 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF-star TPAC F2F 2024-09-26 — https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/ed174942-fbc7-459b-a1d2-9277bdd022ae/
15:47:31 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/ed174942-fbc7-459b-a1d2-9277bdd022ae/
15:47:31 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:47:31 <agendabot> agenda+ Un-star operation to support RDF Dataset Canonicalization? -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114
15:47:31 <agendabot> agenda+ Shape languages and validation features -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-service-description/issues/26
15:47:32 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114 -> Issue 114 Un-star operation to support RDF Dataset Canonicalization? (by niklasl) [needs discussion] [discuss-f2f]
15:47:32 <agendabot> agenda+ Material about rdf:ReificationProperty -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/127
15:47:32 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-service-description/issues/26 -> Issue 26 shape languages and validation features (by phtyson) [discuss-f2f] [needs discussion]
15:47:32 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/127 -> Issue 127 Material about `rdf:ReificationProperty` (by afs) [needs discussion] [discuss-f2f]
15:47:33 <agendabot> agenda+ Addressing SPARQL EXISTS errata -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/156
15:47:34 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/156 -> Issue 156 Addressing SPARQL EXISTS errata (by afs) [discuss-f2f] [needs discussion]
15:47:36 <agendabot> agenda+ Define an interpretation of Triple Terms -> 5 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49
15:47:36 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 -> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [discuss-f2f] [needs discussion]
15:47:39 <agendabot> agenda+ Backlog to add additional issues -> 6 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/7
15:47:42 <agendabot> agenda+ Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
15:52:10 <TallTed> present+
15:54:28 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
15:56:46 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
15:58:36 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
15:59:29 <ktk> present+
16:00:09 <betehess> betehess has joined #rdf-star
16:00:15 <eBremer> present+
16:00:32 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
16:00:36 <ora> present+
16:00:46 <betehess> present+ Alexandre_Bertails
16:01:04 <gkellogg_> present+
16:03:17 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:03:27 <doerthe> present+
16:03:27 <niklasl> present+
16:04:25 <pchampin> present+
16:04:35 <tl> present+
16:05:06 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:05:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:05:25 <pchampin> scribe+
16:05:52 <AndyS> present+
16:06:05 <pchampin> [annoying construction noise]
16:06:28 <gtw> present+
16:06:40 <TallTed> chair: ora
16:06:52 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:07:12 <olaf> present+
16:08:23 <TallTed> agenda?
16:08:25 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/127 -> Issue 127 Material about `rdf:ReificationProperty` (by afs) [needs discussion] [discuss-f2f]
16:08:25 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-service-description/issues/26 -> Issue 26 shape languages and validation features (by phtyson) [discuss-f2f] [needs discussion]
16:08:25 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114 -> Issue 114 Un-star operation to support RDF Dataset Canonicalization? (by niklasl) [needs discussion] [discuss-f2f]
16:08:28 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/156 -> Issue 156 Addressing SPARQL EXISTS errata (by afs) [discuss-f2f] [needs discussion]
16:08:29 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 -> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [discuss-f2f] [needs discussion]
16:08:36 <pchampin> zakim, open item 1
16:08:36 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Un-star operation to support RDF Dataset Canonicalization? -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:09:57 <ora> q?
16:10:04 <pchampin> niklasl: I tried to summarize the two options on the table: unstar based on named graphs, or base on classical reification
16:10:06 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:10:14 <pfps> present+
16:10:16 <pfps> q+
16:10:17 <william_vw> william_vw has joined #rdf-star
16:10:26 <william_vw> present_
16:10:34 <william_vw> present+
16:10:36 <pchampin> ... also the question whether it is targetting canonicalization alone, or more general
16:10:48 <tl> q+
16:11:17 <pchampin> ... if c14n was defined on RDF 1.2 with triple terms, unstar would not be necessary.
16:11:29 <ora> ack pfps
16:11:48 <pchampin> pfps: as far as I'm concerned, this group does not need to do anything about c14n.
16:11:59 <pchampin> ... We could be nice, but not spend to much effort about this.
16:12:25 <pchampin> ... We could say "RDF-CANON should be extended to RDF 1.2. In the mean time, use an unstar mapping that essentially uses reification."
16:12:34 <ora> ack tl
16:12:43 <gtw> q+
16:12:43 <pfps> This should be specified a bit more precisely.
16:13:06 <gtw> q-
16:13:07 <pchampin> tl: I agree that we should provide a reification-based unstar mapping, that does not require named graphs.
16:13:24 <niklasl> q+
16:13:30 <gkellogg_> q+
16:13:34 <ora> ack niklasl
16:13:41 <pchampin> ... Several variants are described in the github issue, I think the reification-based is the less controversial.
16:13:49 <pchampin> q+
16:14:15 <pchampin> niklasl: we need to know what the type of triple terms is.
16:14:31 <AndyS> q+
16:14:35 <ora> ack gkellogg_
16:14:57 <pchampin> gkellogg_: although the unstar is necessary for c14n, there are probably other cases that require it.
16:15:10 <pchampin> ... I think round-tripping is important.
16:15:36 <pchampin> ... We must consider SPARQL as well, being able to run it on an RDF 1.1 database.
16:16:08 <niklasl> +1 to "unstar a query" too (to put annotation in existing graph stores and use it in production)
16:16:29 <pchampin> ... It would also be interesting to be able to turn standard reification into triple terms.
16:16:40 <ora> ack pchampin
16:16:48 <ora> ack AndyS
16:16:48 <niklasl> (noting that I have no problem "unstarring queries" manually)
16:16:51 <pchampin> ora: could be an issue if there is a mix of old-style and new-style.
16:16:58 <pchampin> gkellogg_; we need to decide if that's a problem.
16:17:03 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
16:17:13 <Dominik_T> present+
16:17:42 <niklasl> +1 to that to (is the target 1.2 basic or 1.1)
16:17:47 <pfps> In my opinion an unstar mapping is only to be used as an interim solution.  It does not have to support round-tripping.  It does not need to preserve non-isomorphism for RDF graphs that are not "good" RDF 1.2 graphs (misusing rdf:reifies, misusing triple terms, not well-formed if we still have this).
16:17:48 <pchampin> AndyS: we need to decide if we are turning RDF 1.2 Full into RDF 1.2 Classic or into RDF 1.1. RDF 1.2 has text direction, RDF 1.1 does not. The algorithm would not be the same.
16:17:57 <pfps> q+
16:18:30 <pchampin> gkellogg_: I claim that base direction would not impact c14n.
16:19:14 <ora> ack pfps
16:19:25 <pchampin> ... In the sense that it can easily be integrated in the existing algorithm.
16:19:56 <pchampin> pfps: given that there is more than c14n does not handle, I say we don't do anything.
16:20:05 <pchampin> ora: who's gonna get hurt if we don't do anything?
16:20:06 <pchampin> q+
16:20:11 <AndyS> q+
16:20:32 <pchampin> gkellogg_: the c14n algorithm is not so complicated, but the proof that it's correct are.
16:20:46 <ora> q+
16:20:51 <pfps> q+
16:21:03 <pchampin> ... It is not likely that a new group is going to be chartered to do a new algorithm.
16:21:29 <pchampin> ... If we don't provide an unstar mapping, the RCH group would probably provide one.
16:21:52 <ora> ack pchampin
16:21:57 <pchampin> ... We do have the Full and Basic profiles.
16:22:03 <gkellogg_> scribe+
16:22:28 <niklasl> q+
16:22:29 <gkellogg_> pchampin: I simpathise with pfps position, but agree that if we don't do it someone else will.
16:22:44 <gkellogg_> ... I believe there are other use cases for un-star.
16:22:44 <ora> ack AndyS
16:22:52 <gkellogg_> ... This provides a useful way to go between profiles.
16:22:58 <gkellogg_> scribe-
16:23:03 <tl> I think we should do it (backwards compatibility, and illustrate the meaning of triple terms), and re @AndyS its target should be RDF 1.2 Basic
16:23:16 <pchampin> AndyS: I think we should do something, especially since the CG report already mentions an unstar mapping.
16:23:28 <niklasl> This issue has mutated a bit, and should perhaps be retitled again, to e.g. "Define an unstarred form into RDF 1.1(?)" (to cater for everything specified and/or deployed, including C14N and reasoners, that will not upgrade to RDF 1.2 overnight)?
16:23:30 <ora> ack ora
16:23:49 <pchampin> ... does not have to be a big thing, can be non-normative.
16:24:15 <pchampin> ora: if there are other use-cases for this than c14n, we run the risk that other people do it differently.
16:24:22 <pchampin> ... We are in the best position to do it.
16:25:01 <pchampin> ... What are our use-cases? Is it someone who wants to use RDF 1.2 with their RDF 1.1 implementation?
16:25:03 <pfps> q+ to point out that https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-canon/ has flas
16:25:05 <ora> ack pfps
16:25:05 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to point out that https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-canon/ has flas
16:25:12 <pchampin> ... Other question is round-tripping.
16:25:13 <pchampin> q+
16:25:27 <pchampin> pfps: the RDF-CANON has a big problem, it is unclear about what its input is.
16:25:45 <pchampin> ... The input is an n-quads documents, but in other places it talks about the input dataset.
16:25:57 <pchampin> ... I don't want us to get involved in this.
16:26:11 <pchampin> ... It is not up to us to fix that problem.
16:26:38 <tl> s/its target should be RDF 1.2 Basic/its target should be RDF 1.1
16:26:42 <pchampin> gkellogg_: you seem to be asserting that it is a flawed recommendation.
16:26:47 <pfps> From RDF canonicalization "This document outlines an algorithm for generating a canonical serialization of an RDF dataset given an RDF dataset as input."
16:27:18 <pchampin> ... It uses n-quads as an input to leverage the blank node labels.
16:27:18 <pfps> From the docuemnt "input dataset
16:27:18 <pfps>     The abstract RDF dataset that is provided as input to the algorithm."
16:27:25 <ora> ack niklasl
16:27:26 <tl> q+
16:27:34 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:27:47 <pchampin> ... It was reviewed and I think it is an adequate recommdnation.
16:27:56 <pchampin> s/recommndnation/recommendation
16:27:56 <olaf> present+
16:28:02 <pfps> The algorithm, however, starts with an N-quads document.
16:28:27 <pchampin> niklasl: I think the argument about migrating from RDF 1.1 is a good one.
16:28:55 <tl> +1 to niklasl
16:29:06 <ora> ack pchampin
16:29:20 <tl> q-
16:29:37 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdf-star
16:29:59 <niklasl> q+
16:30:15 <gkellogg_> scribe+
16:30:27 <ora> ack niklasl
16:30:30 <gkellogg_> I think we should use RDF 1.2 Classic as the baseline, not RDF 1.1.
16:30:44 <ora> q+
16:30:45 <gkellogg_> s/I think/pchampin: I think/
16:30:51 <pchampin> niklasl: I sympathise with this position.
16:30:57 <gkellogg_> scribe-
16:31:03 <william_vw> I assume RDF 1.2 classic means without triple terms?
16:31:17 <ora> ack ora
16:31:33 <pchampin> ... There are ways in JSON-LD 1.1 to encode base direction in RDF 1.1, but there are two options, none of them ideal.
16:31:44 <pchampin> ora: what would it require to deal with base direction in RDF 1.1?
16:31:46 <tl> @william_vw yes
16:32:00 <william_vw> @tl thanks
16:32:18 <pchampin> gkellogg_: we would probably go with one of the JSON-LD options, probably the i18n datatype.
16:32:25 <niklasl> I'd agree on i18n datatype version of lang-literals-with-dir.
16:32:39 <pchampin> ora: I don't like the idea to deem this somebody else's problem
16:32:57 <ora> q?
16:32:59 <pchampin> ... Depends how much work we want to put into it, pieces of solution already exist.
16:33:00 <pchampin> q+
16:33:05 <gkellogg_> scribe+
16:33:08 <ora> ack pchampin
16:33:24 <gkellogg_> pchampin: I agree that we need to do something. But, let's be clear on what we're trying to solve.
16:33:38 <gkellogg_> ... I'm worried about using RDF 1.1 as a baseline.
16:34:01 <gkellogg_> ... It's also useful for the "inter-profile" operation.
16:34:09 <william_vw> william_vw has joined #rdf-star
16:34:13 <gkellogg_> ... If we agree that this is the scope, I can take it into account in my PR.
16:34:54 <gkellogg_> scribe-
16:35:03 <pchampin> ora: it would solve the c14n "for free". Ultimately RDF-CANON has to be adapted to RDF 1.2, but we know it may take time.
16:35:58 <ora> STRAWPOLL: Should we include an un-star algorithm in the 1.2 spec? (some questions remain...)
16:36:04 <pfps> -1
16:36:04 <niklasl> +1
16:36:05 <gkellogg_> +1
16:36:06 <tl> +1
16:36:07 <ora> +1
16:36:08 <william_vw> +1
16:36:12 <MacTed> +1
16:36:15 <olaf> +1
16:36:16 <pchampin> +1
16:36:19 <AndyS> +1
16:36:25 <Dominik_T> -0.5
16:37:48 <pchampin> gtw: what would normative mean? not all implementations need the unstar mapping?
16:38:06 <tl> q+
16:38:18 <pchampin> pchampin: it needs to be normative if other specs want to normatively refer to it.
16:38:42 <pchampin> gkellogg_: implementations can be compliant without passing all the tests
16:39:07 <ora> ack tl
16:39:07 <gtw> +1
16:39:10 <pchampin> gtw: the manifest vocabulary allows us to flag tests as requiring certain features
16:40:13 <pchampin> tl: it seems like a straightforward implementation, let's make it normative
16:40:15 <niklasl> I like this direction (not requiring 1.2 implementations to have an unstar operation plus adding a new set of tests for this feature (usable to opt-in for those who support it)).
16:40:41 <pchampin> ora: if we didn't make it normative, that would nudge the RCH group to do the work properly
16:41:12 <tl> s/straightforward implementation, let's/straightforward implementation, not putting unreasonable burden on implementations, so let's
16:41:42 <pchampin> AndyS: the more tests we put, the more work that is, and the less likely it is that people migrate
16:42:55 <AndyS> s/people/implementations/
16:43:06 <pchampin> ora: I don't know the answer to this normative/non-normative thing. If we make a non-normative section, then people will hopefully not make their own.
16:43:30 <pchampin> ... If some days the RCH group makes a 1.2, this is an interim solution.
16:43:33 <pchampin> q+
16:43:54 <ora> ack pchampin
16:44:52 <pchampin> pchampin: in the interest of time, I suggest we defer the nonrmative/non-normative question until we have a PR to discuss on
16:44:59 <pchampin> agenda?
16:45:01 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114 -> Issue 114 Un-star operation to support RDF Dataset Canonicalization? (by niklasl) [needs discussion] [discuss-f2f]
16:45:01 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-service-description/issues/26 -> Issue 26 shape languages and validation features (by phtyson) [discuss-f2f] [needs discussion]
16:45:01 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/127 -> Issue 127 Material about `rdf:ReificationProperty` (by afs) [needs discussion] [discuss-f2f]
16:45:02 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/156 -> Issue 156 Addressing SPARQL EXISTS errata (by afs) [discuss-f2f] [needs discussion]
16:45:03 <niklasl> I see no big risk in just making it informative. (Famous last words; but... In practice, for "reasons", lots of implementations aren't 1:1 with what's normative.)
16:45:04 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 -> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [discuss-f2f] [needs discussion]
16:45:32 <niklasl> I see no *big* risk in just making it informative. (Famous last words; but... In practice, for "reasons", lots of implementations aren't 1:1 with what's normative.)
16:45:39 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:45:43 <pfps> q+
16:45:49 <niklasl> present+
16:46:04 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
16:46:14 <ora> ack pfps
16:46:17 <eBremer> present+
16:47:08 <pchampin> zakim, open item 3
16:47:08 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Material about rdf:ReificationProperty -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/127 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:47:12 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Notes-from-the-Semantic-Task-Force-meeting-2024%E2%80%9009%E2%80%9013
16:47:52 <pchampin> Andy: there is a not of the Semantics TF meeting, Friday 13 September.
16:48:13 <pchampin> ... These are my notes for that, they are not formally agreed.
16:48:26 <pchampin> s/Andy:/AndyS:
16:48:56 <tl> q+
16:49:20 <pfps> q+
16:49:36 <tl> q-
16:49:41 <pchampin> AndyS: I think the key point in there is that there are really only two options. Intermediate optiosn do not work out.
16:49:59 <gkellogg_> q+ to point out that rdf:ReificationProperty is not a property, but a class. Perhaps there's a better name to use.
16:50:00 <ora> ack pfps
16:50:14 <tl> q+
16:50:32 <pchampin> pfps: I believe this discussion should be deferred until we have several reifying properties.
16:50:45 <ora> ack gkellogg_
16:50:45 <Zakim> gkellogg_, you wanted to point out that rdf:ReificationProperty is not a property, but a class. Perhaps there's a better name to use.
16:51:20 <pchampin> gkellogg_: noting that ReificationProperty is not a property but a class. Naming it that way can be confusing.
16:51:41 <pchampin> ... Defining rdf:reifies without class defining its behaviours makes it a bit magical.
16:51:41 <pfps> q+
16:51:52 <pchampin> ... Defining its behaviour in a class makes more sense to me.
16:51:57 <ora> ack tl
16:51:58 <AndyS> +1 to renaming -- e.g. "rdf:ReificationPropertyClass"
16:52:39 <pchampin> tl: I'm promoting that other reification properties exists (e.g. rdf:states), but I would also let anyone define their own reification properties.
16:52:46 <ora> ack pfps
16:53:06 <ora> q+
16:53:19 <AndyS> s/rdf:states/rdfs:states/
16:53:30 <niklasl> The name does follow the naming pattern of rdf:Property, owl:ObjectProperty, owl:DatatypeProperty though?
16:53:33 <pchampin> q+
16:53:36 <doerthe> q+
16:53:36 <ora> ack ora
16:53:48 <pfps> Oops, in trying to set up my headphone, I cut off all sound.
16:54:01 <pfps> I note that rdf:type is not a member of a class.
16:54:11 <pchampin> ora: about the name: yes it is a class, but we have other classes whose name ends with "Property" (rdf:Property, owl:TransitiveProperty)
16:54:14 <pchampin> ... so this is not an issue.
16:54:16 <pchampin> q-
16:54:33 <pchampin> q+
16:54:37 <doerthe> I think pfps should go first
16:54:43 <pchampin> AndyS: I agree that there are others
16:55:04 <tl> q+
16:55:18 <tl> q-
16:55:19 <niklasl> rdf:type a rdf:Property # ?
16:55:20 <pchampin> pfps: I don't see why we need to do this. rdfs:Class is special, it does not belong to a class.
16:55:25 <doerthe> isn't rdf:type an rdf:Property?
16:55:36 <pchampin> s|rdfs:Class|rdf:type
16:55:40 <ora> ack doerthe
16:55:46 <tl> @pfps the reason is that we want to somehow describe how to use triple terms
16:56:20 <pchampin> doerthe: isn't rdf:type an rdf:Property, not a specia one, but still a property.
16:56:48 <AndyS>  rdf:ReificationProperty  -- https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22alternative-baseline%22#metamodelling-entailment-patterns-and-axiomatic-triples
16:56:50 <pchampin> ... The goal of ReificationProperty was to help people find out that a property was used with a triple term as object. Not more, not less.
16:57:04 <pchampin> ... I don't see why adding "Class" to the name of ReificationProperty.
16:57:37 <ora> ack pchampin
16:57:38 <pchampin> ... I agree that we should discuss whether we want other reifictaion properties.
16:57:42 <gkellogg_> scribe+
16:57:47 <ora> q+
16:58:07 <william_vw> thanks everyone - I need to leave to attend a school assembly here
16:58:13 <gkellogg_> pchampin: -1 to rename rdf:ReificationProperty to rdf:ReificationPropertyClass. Names matter.
16:58:39 <gkellogg_> ... +1 to what doerthe said; the goal of the ReificationProperty class was to flag properties based on.
16:59:04 <gkellogg_> ... I'm not a big fan of ReificationProperty either. But, I don't see there's any special behavior. It's just a flag.
16:59:40 <gkellogg_> ... Another way to flag properties that are used with TripleTerms is to make them sub-properties of rdf:reifies, but that would cross over to RDFS.
17:00:16 <gkellogg_> ... Instead of saying that any property of type ReificationProperty is has behavior, make them sub=properties of rdf:reifies.
17:00:23 <tl> +1 to that
17:00:23 <ora> ack ora
17:00:33 <gkellogg_> scribe-
17:00:46 <pchampin> ora: what is the hypothetical effect that this has on implementers?
17:01:19 <pchampin> ... If we say that rdf:reifies is a special property without putting it in a specia class, does it give implementers more latitude?
17:01:29 <pchampin> ... I don't have the answer but I think yes.
17:01:34 <pchampin> q+
17:01:40 <gkellogg_> scribe+
17:01:44 <ora> ack pchampin
17:01:47 <AndyS> q+
17:02:07 <gkellogg_> pchampin: In my opinion it doesn't give more or less latitude to implementors.
17:02:13 <gkellogg_> scribe-
17:02:21 <ora> ack AndyS
17:02:37 <pchampin> AndyS: IIRC ReificationProperty was introduced by Enrico to replace the well-formed-ness condition.
17:02:54 <ora> q+
17:02:57 <tl> q+
17:03:05 <niklasl> q+
17:03:38 <pchampin> ... Previous properties were "reserving" rdf:reifies to be used in precise contexts, which make it a very special property.
17:03:42 <pfps> q+
17:03:55 <ora> ack ora
17:04:01 <pchampin> ora: if rdf:reifies is a special property, similar to rdf:type, do we have examples or subproperties of rdf:type?
17:04:02 <ora> ack tl
17:04:16 <pchampin> gkellogg_: Schema.org defines a subclass of rdf:type.
17:04:21 <pfps> q-
17:04:31 <niklasl> Yes, schema:additionalType is explicitly defined as rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type
17:04:46 <pchampin> tl: I like the idea of using rdfs:subPropertyOf
17:04:46 <ora> ack niklasl
17:05:20 <pchampin> ... Also, I concur with AndyS about the origin of Reification Property.
17:05:33 <pchampin> niklasl: I am not sure what I think about the subProperty solution. I also concur with AndyS.
17:05:59 <doerthe> q+
17:06:15 <pchampin> ... These properties have a special range, I think this was Enrico's point.
17:06:17 <ora> ack doerthe
17:06:35 <pchampin> doerthe: I don't have an opinion yet about the subProperty solution. I don't know what it would do.
17:06:44 <pchampin> ... Do we want to have a range for rdf:reifies?
17:06:47 <AndyS> It's not range but RDF concepts (editors working draft) has https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#h-note-2
17:06:51 <gkellogg_> q+
17:06:57 <ora> ack gkellogg_
17:07:03 <niklasl> q+
17:07:16 <pchampin> gkellogg_: I think we have discussed having a range for rdf:reifies of rdf:TripleTerm.
17:07:23 <gtw> q+
17:07:25 <pchampin> ... This also came up in the discussion about unstar.
17:07:45 <ora> ack niklasl
17:07:54 <doerthe> I am just afraid that we add a triple term class and make it the range or rdf:reifies
17:08:00 <pchampin> ... the type rdf:TripleTerm is used to indicate that a blank node is representing a triple term.
17:08:19 <doerthe> q+
17:08:22 <ora> ack gtw
17:08:36 <pchampin> niklasl: I agree. There was a discussion about naming it rdf:Triple vs. rdf:TripleTerm, but that's a separate discussion.
17:09:02 <pchampin> gtw: I mentioned SPIN before, where you don't necessarily want to set a range.
17:09:20 <tl> q+
17:09:32 <ora> ack doerthe
17:09:39 <pchampin> ... We don't necessarily want to force a range on all reifying properties.
17:10:04 <pchampin> doerthe: the moment we set a range on rdf:reifies, I would disagree with the subProperty solution.
17:10:05 <MacTed> rangeIncludes ?
17:10:05 <pchampin> q+
17:10:09 <ora> ack tl
17:10:48 <ora> ack pchampin
17:10:48 <gkellogg_> scribe+
17:11:18 <gkellogg_> pchampin: I agree with doerthe and would vote against my own proposal if we have a range for rdf:reifies.
17:11:47 <niklasl> q+
17:11:49 <gkellogg_> ... I can see a range argument, and if we want it to be part of RDF Semantics, it's not good to mix. I see many drawbacks.
17:11:53 <gkellogg_> scribe-
17:11:53 <MacTed> q+
17:11:59 <ora> ack niklasl
17:12:06 <pchampin> niklasl: we haven't talked about what Reification Property would mean.
17:12:21 <pchampin> ... If it is just a marker, there is not much impact.
17:12:33 <ora> ack TallTed
17:12:39 <ora> ack MacTed
17:12:52 <pchampin> TallTed: it occurs to me that this may be a place where rangeIncludes and domainIncludes can be useful.
17:12:52 <tl> I had that discussion with Gregg Williams and though that when mixing ways to represent triple terms it's not surprising that issues occur. Apart from that, maybe I'm just ignorant so I would like to see examples from e.g.  Dörthe
17:13:11 <pchampin> ... These are not enforced schemata.
17:13:34 <pchampin> s/rangeIncludes/schema.org's rangeIncludes
17:14:53 <pchampin> ora: I feel we should hear Enrico on this. Let's encourage him to read the minutes, and pick this up next Thursday.
17:15:02 <pchampin> pchampin: +1
17:15:12 <pchampin> q.
17:15:12 <niklasl> +1
17:15:17 <pchampin> s/q./
17:15:19 <pchampin> q?
17:15:22 <tl> +1
17:15:31 <pchampin> agenda?
17:16:34 <TallTed> we should perhaps close the items we've addressed (e.g., un-star)?
17:16:43 <pchampin> zakim, open item 2
17:16:45 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Shape languages and validation features -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-service-description/issues/26 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:16:58 <ora> PROPOSAL: Mark as out-of-scope and close
17:17:04 <gkellogg_> +1
17:17:05 <pchampin> <pchampin> +1
17:17:05 <tl> +1
17:17:07 <ora> +1
17:17:12 <gtw> +1
17:17:13 <doerthe> +1
17:17:15 <niklasl> +1
17:17:15 <TallTed> +1
17:17:16 <eBremer> +1
17:17:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:17:27 <Dominik_T> +0.5
17:17:32 <AndyS> s/Gregg Williams/Greg Williams/
17:17:44 <gkellogg_> q+
17:17:46 <AndyS> +1
17:18:07 <ora> ack gkellogg_
17:18:43 <ora> RESOLVED: Mark as out-of-scope and close
17:19:19 <pchampin> topic: syntax for reifiers
17:19:53 <doerthe> I  have to leave, sorry
17:20:50 <pchampin> ora: I think the main point of contention is whether this is prefix or postfix
17:21:17 <pchampin> gkellogg_: that, and tilda versus pipe or other characters.
17:21:32 <pchampin> ora: AndyS, you make a point about ease of parsing
17:22:01 <tl> q+
17:22:05 <pchampin> AndyS: not just that. The pipe is already used in SPARQL, although there are ways around that.
17:22:28 <pchampin> ... Enrico made the point that in N-Triples, the reifier comes first (in the subject position).
17:22:38 <ora> ack tl
17:22:48 <pchampin> ... I think that internal consistency in Turtle is more important.
17:23:37 <pchampin> tl: I made a few proposals, including the use of pipe everywhere, and replacing the curly brackets in the annotation syntax.
17:24:03 <pchampin> ... I think we should have looked at the problem that way.
17:24:28 <pchampin> ... I find Enrico's argument about the position in N-Triples irrelevant.
17:24:30 <niklasl> q+
17:24:52 <pchampin> ora: you are saying this is a usability issue.
17:24:53 <ora> ack niklasl
17:25:03 <pchampin> tl: yes, it is the interface, it is important to get this right.
17:25:37 <pchampin> niklasl: I agree, affordances are important, that's why the pipe is tricky because of its use in SPARQL.
17:25:44 <pchampin> q+
17:25:51 <ora> ack pchampin
17:25:53 <gkellogg_> scribe+
17:26:13 <gkellogg_> pchampin: I agree that this is turnning into a broad discussion we can't do in a short amount of time.
17:26:21 <niklasl> q+
17:26:31 <gkellogg_> ... We can consider suffix vs. prefix and separately the tokens used.
17:26:35 <ora> ack niklasl
17:26:40 <gkellogg_> scribe-
17:27:00 <pchampin> niklasl: agreed, long prefix makes things hard to read
17:27:20 <ora> STRAWPOLL: Postfix?
17:27:23 <ora> +1
17:27:24 <gkellogg_> +1
17:27:25 <pchampin> +1
17:27:25 <tl> +1
17:27:26 <niklasl> +1
17:27:27 <pfps> 0
17:27:29 <Dominik_T> 0
17:27:32 <gtw> +1
17:27:37 <TallTed> +1
17:27:37 <AndyS> +1
17:27:41 <eBremer> +1
17:27:50 <ktk> +1
17:28:49 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:28:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:29:27 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:45:19 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:58:57 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
18:01:36 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:01:59 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:03:02 <gkellogg> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:03:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-rdf-star-minutes.html gkellogg
18:03:13 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
18:03:17 <ora> present+
18:05:03 <ktk> Tpt: are you around?
18:05:28 <Tpt> I am back
18:05:29 <pfps> scribe: pfps
18:05:35 <pchampin> zakim, close item 1
18:05:35 <Zakim> agendum 1, Un-star operation to support RDF Dataset Canonicalization? -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114, closed
18:05:36 <pchampin> zakim, close item 2
18:05:37 <Zakim> I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
18:05:37 <Zakim> 2. Shape languages and validation features -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-service-description/issues/26 [from agendabot]
18:05:38 <ora> chair+
18:05:38 <Zakim> agendum 2, Shape languages and validation features -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-service-description/issues/26, closed
18:05:38 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
18:05:40 <Zakim> 3. Material about rdf:ReificationProperty -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/127 [from agendabot]
18:05:41 <Tpt> present+
18:05:43 <pchampin> zakim, close item 3
18:05:43 <Zakim> agendum 3, Material about rdf:ReificationProperty -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/127, closed
18:05:45 <niklasl> present+
18:05:46 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
18:05:46 <Zakim> 4. Addressing SPARQL EXISTS errata -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/156 [from agendabot]
18:05:49 <pchampin> agenda?
18:06:28 <pfps> scribe: tpt
18:07:07 <Tpt> there is still the question of which character we choose
18:07:38 <ktk> s/there is/Ora: there is/
18:07:43 <Tpt> ora: There are arguments against |
18:08:36 <Tpt> ora: There will re reifirers without annotations blocks and annotation blocks without reifiers
18:08:44 <gtw> q+
18:09:16 <pchampin> q+
18:09:17 <Tpt> ora: if you see an annotation block after a reifier, it is related to this reifier so there is some memory needed
18:09:19 <tl> my 5cents on syntax: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Sep/0073.html
18:09:55 <Tpt> AndyS: it's easier than doing RDF list
18:10:01 <betehess> betehess has joined #rdf-star
18:10:03 <ora> ack gtw
18:10:28 <Tpt> gtw: Have we a concised summary of the various syntaxes?
18:10:53 <ora> ack pchampin
18:11:02 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/blob/main/spec/turtle.bnf
18:11:35 <AndyS> q+
18:12:37 <pchampin> << :s :p :o ~ :r >>.
18:12:53 <tl> Souri asked for that
18:12:59 <niklasl> I tried to have a bunch of variants appear "naturally" in https://niklasl.github.io/rdf-docs/presentations/RDF-reifiers-1/ Slide 19 uses that form.
18:13:28 <AndyS> q-
18:13:33 <tl> q+
18:13:54 <ora> ack tl
18:14:32 <betehess> betehess has joined #rdf-star
18:14:36 <Tpt> tl: I would like to point this syntax proposal but I thought we would do syntax later : https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Sep/0073.html
18:15:00 <betehess> betehess has joined #rdf-star
18:15:08 <niklasl> q+
18:15:15 <pchampin> :s :p :o ~ :r1 ~ :r2 {| :a :b |}.
18:15:24 <Tpt> gkellogg: you can insert more than 1 annotation or refifier
18:15:25 <pchampin> :s :p :o ~ :r1 ~ :r2 {| :a :b |} ~ :r3.
18:15:36 <AndyS> q+
18:15:41 <Tpt> gkellogg: in any order
18:16:18 <gtw> q+
18:16:19 <ora> ack niklasl
18:16:21 <Tpt> pchampin: if there is no reifier before annotations, the reifier is a blank node
18:16:55 <ora> ack AndyS
18:17:29 <Tpt> AndyS: what I find odd is that the annotation block have to have at least one predicate object inside
18:17:44 <Tpt> AndyS: it makes generating this kind of syntax from a program more complicated
18:18:48 <niklasl> That empty annotation blocks weren't allowed did trip me up in my introductory slide (8) for annotation sugar.
18:19:25 <Tpt> ora: Both Turtle and SPARQL use predicateObjectList+
18:19:54 <niklasl> So +1 from me for allowing it. Makes it easier to save hand-edited, unfinished turtle...
18:20:11 <tl> from my proposal:   { :s1 :p :o . :s2 :p :o  | :r1 } [| :a :b |] .
18:20:12 <ora> ack gtw
18:20:17 <tl> q+
18:21:14 <AndyS> :s :p :o ~ :r1 ~ :r2 {| :a :b |} {| :c :d |}
18:22:02 <niklasl> <s> :p <o> ~ <r1> {| a :Named |} . <s> :p <o> ~ <r1> ~ {| a :NotNamed |} .
18:22:26 <Tpt> AndyS: Are you suggesting we have an empty annotation block to "cancel" the preceding reifier?
18:22:30 <niklasl> See above line. :)
18:22:31 <pchampin> q?
18:22:33 <pchampin> q+
18:22:37 <ora> ack tl
18:22:47 <Tpt> gkellogg: you can do "~ {|" to get a blank node
18:23:19 <tl> from my proposal:   <| :s :p :o | :r |> :a :b .
18:23:27 <Tpt> tl: We should keep {} for group of statements, not annotations
18:23:53 <Tpt> tl: If we change the abstract reified triple to <<| we use pipes everywhere
18:24:12 <Tpt> tl: That way the pipe would be everywhere we use RDF-*
18:24:42 <Tpt> gkellogg: I am afraid it collide with N3 where they use | for object paths
18:24:59 <Tpt> gkellogg: the triple object can be a path, and I believe it can include "|"
18:25:18 <Tpt> gkellogg: This would be against a bare pipe
18:26:09 <ora> ack pchampin
18:26:47 <Dominik_T> gkellogg can you provide a link or an example where in N3 pipe can be used?
18:27:10 <Tpt> pchampin: I would like to come back to the previous topic, my personal opinion is that ~ without identifier is a bit strange. I would argue it's not ncessary required we can still write ~ []
18:27:38 <niklasl> q+
18:27:39 <Tpt> gkellogg: A [] now means bnode property list
18:28:41 <Tpt> gkellogg: If we allow empty annotation blocks, it's also a way to avoid the empty ~
18:28:46 <ora> ack niklasl
18:28:50 <ora> q+
18:30:05 <gtw> I believe per the current Turtle draft spec, [] would be valid per the reifier rule: `reifier::='~' (iri | BlankNode)?` (via BlankNode)
18:31:34 <ora> ack ora
18:31:51 <Tpt> AndyS: I think it's a bit confusing because it would be the  only place where you can have [] but not [ propertyObjectList ]
18:32:08 <Tpt> ora: If we confuse users it's not going to lead to anything good
18:32:25 <Dominik_T> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:32:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T
18:32:35 <AndyS> q+
18:32:40 <Tpt> ora: We have this think with multiple reifiers and annotations. Is it really relevant?
18:33:02 <Tpt> ora: I don't want for people to start to write things and getting it wrong
18:33:18 <niklasl> Pro/con: <s> :p <o> ~ [ :date "2024" ] . # Pro: Regularity, same syntax for bnodes. Con: may be odd in combination with the naming-and-describing pairing mechanism.
18:33:31 <AndyS> q-
18:34:09 <Tpt> ora: Syntax discussions are often more difficult semantic discussions
18:34:12 <niklasl> +q for syntax being more difficult (also: "there is only syntax")
18:34:21 <niklasl> q-
18:34:24 <Tpt> ora: It would be nice if we can break this up into a series of decisions
18:34:36 <niklasl> s/+q/+1/
18:35:05 <niklasl> q+
18:35:23 <Tpt> ora: would be nice if somebody take the trouble to figure out which decisions we have to make, we would have examples of the variants
18:35:37 <ora> ack niklasl
18:35:48 <pchampin> q+
18:35:55 <AndyS> q+
18:36:18 <ora> ack pchampin
18:36:46 <tl> q+
18:36:56 <Tpt> pchampin: if we keep "<<" we need to keep it consistent with what people expect from the CG
18:37:29 <ora> ack AndyS
18:38:02 <ktk> Regrets: AZ, enrico
18:38:52 <ora> ack tl
18:39:25 <Tpt> tl: << has been used also for asserted things
18:39:41 <Tpt> tl: what part of history do we refer to when we talk about user assumptions?
18:39:48 <pchampin> q.
18:39:49 <pchampin> q?
18:40:29 <Tpt> pchampin: To be clear I said "if we keep" the <<, getting ride of it alltogether is a way to solve the problem
18:40:42 <Tpt> gkellogg: It would be nice to make a decision, everything depends on it
18:41:43 <tl> q+
18:42:57 <Tpt> ora: it's unfortunate that the syntax PR has been opened for such a long time with not enough attention
18:43:34 <Tpt> ora: People often take tiny interest on syntax, way less than it is warenteed
18:44:00 <Tpt> ora: I am open to suggestions how to do this
18:44:18 <Tpt> AndyS: we should take this offline
18:45:28 <Tpt> ora: agree we do this offline, in a way we ended up in a place I did not wanted to end, fighting over these things
18:45:50 <Tpt> ora: I suggest chairs will pick this up and will go from there
18:45:55 <pfps> which PR?
18:46:42 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/pull/51
18:46:43 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/pull/51 -> MERGED Pull Request 51 Grammar updates for triple terms and occurrences. (by gkellogg) [spec:substantive]
18:49:32 <Tpt> pchampin: In the interest of splitting into multiple decisions, I think we can budle the brackets for triple term, unasserted triples and annotations
18:49:47 <pchampin> agenda?
18:49:51 <tl> s/budle/bundle
18:49:54 <tl> q-
18:50:02 <pchampin> zakim, open item 4
18:50:02 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Addressing SPARQL EXISTS errata -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/156 -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:50:10 <Tpt> ora: Are there people fine with the current syntax?
18:50:11 <Tpt> ora: In any case, chairs will discuss this, let's move on
18:52:04 <Tpt> AndyS: [about SPARQL EXISTS] There are two proposals
18:52:04 <Tpt> AndyS: 1. substitution based on various existing errata
18:52:04 <Tpt> AndyS: 2. an other one based on ANTIJOIN. We already have MINUS. Except the behavior with disjoin domain. But outside of it it's ANTIJOIN
18:52:50 <Tpt> AndyS: On an other note, there are other things that might go to SPARQL like LATERAL that can be based on substitution. And pure form of anti join and semi join
18:53:33 <Tpt> AndyS: It's a possibility to move these additions (LATERAL, anti join...) to sparql dev
18:54:18 <Tpt> pchampin: we would add more subtly differences between operators like FILTER NOT EXISTS vs MINUS
18:54:41 <Tpt> pchampin: Your point of having multiple ways might create problems
18:54:48 <Dominik_T> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:54:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T
18:55:02 <Tpt> ora: SPARQL spec spends a bit of time presenting this difference
18:55:10 <Tpt> AndyS: It was quite contentious in SPARQL 1.1
18:55:26 <tl> q+
18:55:48 <pchampin> I'm more than happy to let the editors decide on that
18:55:53 <ora> ack tl
18:55:57 <Tpt> AndyS: I am not aware of any outgoing opinion, I think it ends up to a choice on which way to go
18:56:11 <Tpt> tl: is it related to triple terms in any way of is it a SPARQL errata
18:56:21 <Tpt> AndyS: it has nothing to do with triple terms
18:56:28 <pfps> q+
18:56:36 <Tpt> tl: what is the criteria of SPARQL errata to discuss now?
18:57:17 <Tpt> tl: it's a central issue, is that an argument?
18:57:42 <Tpt> s/that an argument/that the argument/
18:59:14 <ora> ack pfps
18:59:44 <Tpt> pfps: There are a bunch of problems with SPARQL, the ones with EXIST are the biggies
18:59:56 <Tpt> pfps: They end up splitting the SPARQL implementation space
19:00:53 <Tpt> pfps: The decision that has to be made is to move SPARQL EXIST toward a more database-like implementation and keep it more consistent with the existing
19:01:22 <Tpt> AndyS: The current implementation is present in SQL with correlated subqueries
19:02:49 <Tpt> pfps: if you use the semi/anti join interepretation of EXISTS you change SPARQL more than the other option
19:03:15 <Tpt> pfps: In the end people who will see and understand the differences are a few
19:03:30 <Tpt> s/a few/very few/
19:03:50 <Tpt> ora: I would like to know preferences
19:04:02 <Tpt> AndyS: My preference is for substitution and applying errata (option 1)
19:04:21 <Tpt> pfps: I don't have much of a horse in this race
19:04:40 <pchampin> q+
19:04:51 <Tpt> pfps: Idealy I would love to get more SPARQL developers on board
19:05:25 <Tpt> q+
19:05:41 <pchampin> q-
19:05:41 <ktk> q+
19:05:58 <Tpt> ora: we could talk outside of the group
19:06:14 <ktk> q-
19:06:21 <Tpt> ktk: I reached out to stardog but not got an input
19:06:56 <Tpt> ??: I am not sure much value to reach out to more developers. sparql-dev has been opened for a long time
19:07:02 <gkellogg> q?
19:07:11 <ora> ack Tpt
19:07:15 <pchampin> s/??:/gtw:
19:07:33 <pfps> q+
19:07:38 <pchampin> Tpt: I have a signicant preference for option 1; option 2 is basically equivalent to MINUS
19:07:44 <ora> ack pfps
19:08:07 <Tpt> pfps: One way to check the issue would be to pull some tests
19:08:31 <pfps> which PR?
19:08:45 <gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/issues/42
19:08:46 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/issues/42 -> Issue 42 tests to document current definition of EXISTS in SPARQL (by pfps) [SPARQL]
19:09:22 <gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/pull/43
19:09:22 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/pull/43 -> CLOSED Pull Request 43 Add tests to document current definition of EXISTS (by pfps)
19:10:02 <Tpt> ora: Whatever solutions we pick, someone will ask why we pick it
19:10:12 <Tpt> AndyS: picking sustitution breaks the least queries
19:10:32 <tl> q+
19:10:37 <Tpt> ora: That seems to me a as good reason as any, let's make a decision
19:10:39 <ora> ack tl
19:11:07 <Tpt> tl: I would like to ask my boss about it
19:11:18 <Tpt> ora: Let's vote on it next Thursday
19:11:26 <Tpt> ora: Let's do it
19:11:30 <tl> s/my boss/james
19:12:00 <gkellogg> agenda?
19:12:12 <gkellogg> zakim, close item 4
19:12:12 <Zakim> agendum 4, Addressing SPARQL EXISTS errata -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/156, closed
19:12:14 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
19:12:14 <Zakim> 5. Define an interpretation of Triple Terms -> 5 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 [from agendabot]
19:12:14 <niklasl> q+
19:12:20 <ora> ack niklasl
19:12:28 <gkellogg> zakim, open item 5
19:12:28 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Define an interpretation of Triple Terms -> 5 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 -- taken up [from agendabot]
19:13:59 <tl> q+
19:14:42 <ora> ack tl
19:15:22 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
19:15:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
19:15:47 <Tpt> niklasl: I propose to use the rdf:subject/predicate/object properties for the interpetation
19:17:15 <pchampin> q+
19:17:35 <pfps> q+ to ask how this relates to the semantics from Enrico?
19:17:36 <Tpt> niklasl: This might not good to entail old reification from triple terms
19:18:06 <ora> ack pchampin
19:18:41 <ora> ack pfps
19:18:41 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask how this relates to the semantics from Enrico?
19:19:17 <niklasl> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/issues/27
19:19:18 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/issues/27 -> Issue 27 Integrating different ontology designs through entailment upon triple terms (by niklasl) [use case]
19:21:22 <pfps> Where are the semantics from Enrico, by the way?
19:21:28 <Tpt> ora: If we need some clarification on this, does it means we differ this one until Enrico shows up?
19:21:37 <pchampin> q?
19:22:17 <Tpt> pchampin: Does this point to a specific use case or is this a nice to have,
19:22:39 <niklasl> https://gist.github.com/niklasl/69428b043be6f1d33fd45f89cbe52632#file-statement-entailment-ttl
19:22:42 <AndyS> q+
19:22:44 <Tpt> niklasl: there are use cases I defined previously
19:22:57 <ora> ack AndyS
19:23:11 <Tpt> AndyS: This seems to relate to the discussion around unstar
19:23:33 <tl> q+
19:23:44 <Tpt> AndyS: Done this way I don't see how we can add multiple triples to the same reifier
19:24:55 <ora> ack tl
19:24:56 <Tpt> tl: I have seen multiple variants and they are all many-to-many
19:25:05 <Tpt> one is RDF-vocabulary based
19:25:08 <niklasl> Here is a comment on the unstarring issue I made yesterday https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114#issuecomment-2374744294 which relates to this issue about interpretationb.
19:25:09 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114 -> Issue 114 Un-star operation to support RDF Dataset Canonicalization? (by niklasl) [needs discussion] [discuss-f2f]
19:25:20 <niklasl> s/interpretationb/interpretation/
19:25:35 <tl> s/seen/developed in a github issue
19:26:30 <Tpt> ora: I don't think we can reach a concensus here, is it a good discussion topic for next week after voting?
19:26:48 <tl> q+ to ask about when rdfs:states will be discussed
19:27:29 <ora> ack tl
19:27:29 <Zakim> tl, you wanted to ask about when rdfs:states will be discussed
19:27:33 <gkellogg> JSON-LD-star slides – https://json-ld.github.io/w3c-tpac-2024-presentations/json-ld-star/
19:27:54 <AndyS> +1 to having the JSON-LD presentation in a focused meeting.
19:29:01 <Tpt> ora: Thank you everybody
19:29:13 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
19:29:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
19:29:20 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:33:02 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:34:56 <betehess> betehess has joined #rdf-star
19:54:46 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:19:54 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:22:25 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-star
20:30:22 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:44:10 <betehess> betehess has joined #rdf-star
20:45:53 <timbl> timbl has joined #rdf-star
20:57:07 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:58:58 <betehess> betehess has joined #rdf-star
20:59:24 <betehess> betehess has joined #rdf-star
21:06:43 <niklasl> niklasl has left #rdf-star
23:02:35 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:12:56 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-star
23:29:35 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:31:47 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:44:51 <betehess> betehess has joined #rdf-star
23:47:00 <betehess> betehess has joined #rdf-star
23:47:24 <betehess> betehess has joined #rdf-star