IRC log of rdf-star on 2021-05-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:45:21 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:45:21 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:45:23 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:45:24 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
14:45:29 [pchampin]
meeting: RDF-star
14:45:33 [pchampin]
chair: pchampin
14:45:45 [pchampin]
14:45:46 [agendabot]
clear agenda
14:45:46 [agendabot]
agenda+ Announcements and newcomers
14:45:46 [agendabot]
agenda+ Admin
14:45:46 [agendabot]
agenda+ Open actions
14:45:46 [agendabot]
agenda+ Open-ended discussions
14:47:10 [pchampin]
Previous meeting:
15:00:12 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:00:14 [ora]
ora has joined #rdf-star
15:00:24 [ora]
15:02:04 [AndyS]
15:02:10 [pchampin]
15:02:41 [james]
james has joined #rdf-star
15:02:48 [gkellogg]
15:02:56 [AndyS]
Don't forget - zoom call today.
15:03:04 [james]
15:03:13 [thomas]
thomas has joined #rdf-star
15:04:00 [thomas]
15:04:01 [gkellogg]
Reminder that we’re on Zoom this week.
15:05:03 [TallTed]
TallTed has joined #rdf-star
15:05:24 [pchampin]
regrets: olaf
15:06:04 [pchampin]
scribe: gkellogg
15:06:14 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:06:14 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Announcements and newcomers -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:06:26 [pchampin]
15:07:18 [gkellogg]
pchampin: Olaf had tweeted about an interview on using RDF-star, but haven’t seen a reference.
15:07:25 [pchampin]
15:07:29 [gkellogg]
… Using Ontotext GraphDB?
15:07:34 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:07:34 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Admin -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:07:36 [AndyS]
15:07:42 [TallTed]
15:08:05 [AndyS]
Also - there was a blog from TopQuadrant.
15:08:21 [gkellogg]
pchampin: I think we’re narrowing the things we have to discuss, and it’s been more convenient to have calls less frequently. I think we can go to one call every two weeks.
15:08:59 [james]
15:09:01 [AndyS]
15:09:06 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
15:09:24 [gkellogg]
AndyS: The next objective is to get a community report done.
15:09:42 [gkellogg]
… I’d think the intro and the SPARQL bits are what remains, both nearlly done.
15:09:45 [thomas]
15:09:53 [gkellogg]
… When do we plan that for?
15:10:16 [gkellogg]
pchampin: Maybe we can defer the change of schedule until after the report is published.
15:10:21 [pchampin]
ack thomas
15:10:56 [gkellogg]
thomas: GitHub has been active lately on semantics and vocabulary. Is there interest in becoming more concrete on semantic extensions?
15:11:29 [gkellogg]
pchampin: My understanding was that the vocabulary was not blocking for the publishing of the final report (first).
15:11:43 [gkellogg]
… THe idea is to make it a bit more milestone-ish.
15:12:22 [ora]
15:12:22 [gkellogg]
thomas: I feer it then becomes an afterthought and is left to the WG. I think the extension part should be as concrete as possible.
15:13:02 [gkellogg]
pchampin: I made a proposal following my action about what issues are considered to be blocking before “Final Report” milestone.
15:13:18 [gkellogg]
thomas: I’m fine with “milestone”.
15:13:32 [gkellogg]
pchampin: This was a list of blocking issues, and the vocabulary was not part of it.
15:13:54 [gkellogg]
… My understanding is that we can discuss the vocabulary afterwards and have other milestones before a final final report.
15:14:13 [gkellogg]
… It’s good to show progress before an upcoming charter draft.
15:14:40 [gkellogg]
… I’m not proposing to stop our work after the FR is out. We have some open issues, and my goal is to address them.
15:15:02 [pchampin]
15:15:14 [gkellogg]
thomas: It’s the fring bits of RDF-star that are left, and intrest will deminish.
15:15:25 [pchampin]
ack ora
15:16:05 [gkellogg]
ora: I think the questions of semantics are very important. ONe of the big mistakes with the original RDF spec is that we weren’t very formal, which was rectified later.
15:16:29 [gkellogg]
… I’m in favor of working on semantic questions, but my feer is that we might want to address issues of schema.
15:16:44 [gkellogg]
… At this point, it’s not clear how to write a schema that makes use of RDF-star.
15:16:47 [pchampin]
15:17:37 [gkellogg]
pchampin: Regarding the vocabulary, it started with an idea to have a term for the “class” of embedded triples, so that we could describe a property to expect and embedded triple.
15:18:02 [gkellogg]
… We also had the idea of having a standard way of expressing that something is an instance of a triple in a graph.
15:18:40 [gkellogg]
… There was a question of what voculary to use, but the key was an IRI expressing the type of an embedded triple.
15:19:33 [thomas]
15:19:33 [gkellogg]
… This opens a can of worms; we agreed not to decide where to put the vocabulary, so this is not low-hanging fruit, which is why I preferred to defer until after the next milestone.
15:19:35 [pchampin]
15:19:39 [ora]
15:19:46 [pchampin]
ack thomas
15:20:20 [gkellogg]
thomas: THe two properties “occurance of” and “in graph” could be defined informally. THat would show how it can/should be done.
15:20:39 [gkellogg]
15:20:47 [pchampin]
15:21:20 [gkellogg]
pchampin: The “in” hides it’s own issues. Is the object a graph, or a graph document, …
15:21:32 [gkellogg]
thomas: I think it can be solved pragmatically.
15:21:40 [pchampin]
15:21:47 [gkellogg]
pchampin: I’m not sure something ambiguous is better than nothing.
15:21:55 [pchampin]
ack ora
15:22:31 [gkellogg]
ora: I wanted to say I agree with PA, but we have to go there soon. If not now, at least we should have some words to say that something like this is needed.
15:22:47 [gkellogg]
… I don’t want to end up like the PG community, where there is no schema language.
15:22:54 [pchampin]
ack gkellogg
15:22:58 [pchampin]
15:23:14 [pchampin]
gkellogg: we have to be careful about talking about graphs.
15:23:30 [pchampin]
... RDF does not really provides way to talk about graphs,
15:23:42 [pchampin]
... because the semantics of named graphs is not defined.
15:24:02 [pchampin]
... Talking about the default graph is sometimes done with <>.
15:24:17 [thomas]
15:24:31 [pchampin]
ack thomas
15:24:56 [gkellogg]
thomas: If it can be done in SPARQL, that’s good enough for me.
15:25:10 [gkellogg]
pchampin: Can we make such a comitment for RDF?
15:25:31 [gkellogg]
thomas: We could use mild terms to suggest that it could/should be done.
15:26:34 [pchampin]
gkellogg: some groups (VC) depend on the ability to use the graph name to identify it
15:26:48 [pchampin]
... If we need to define that, then it needs to be in the charter.
15:26:56 [pchampin]
... Certainly will attract people.
15:27:40 [james]
15:27:42 [gkellogg]
pchampin: Back to the final report, I propose to add a chapter on the RDF-star vocabulary, but only reference the open issues plus some non-normative notes about being addressed in the future.
15:28:15 [pchampin]
STRAWPOLL: have a "placeholder" section about the RDF-star vocabulary, containing links to the issues
15:28:21 [gkellogg]
15:28:23 [thomas]
15:28:32 [ora]
15:29:21 [AndyS]
+1: Many issues raised are wider than RDF-star. A placeholder seems the way to go. (Separate RDF-DEV group?)
15:29:26 [gkellogg]
james: I’m perplexed as to the reluctance for using SPARQL expressions when so much work has been done. Even if you don’t know the consequences, it would help the discourse.
15:29:44 [gkellogg]
… It would be worth to have this discussion in the chapter.
15:30:12 [gkellogg]
pchampin: I’m reluctant to make it a blocking condition on the milestone final report. After it’s published, I think we should address it.
15:30:34 [gkellogg]
james: Then why not put it in now? I’d like to make it as concrete as possible ASAP.
15:30:55 [gkellogg]
pchampin: My feeling is that it may draw us into discussions that will further delay the milestone.
15:30:58 [pchampin]
15:31:08 [james]
15:31:53 [TallTed]
15:31:57 [thomas]
how many "final reports" are there? what differentiates a first "final report" from others? will they be marked as molestones?
15:32:20 [thomas]
15:32:26 [pchampin]
ack james
15:32:29 [gkellogg]
pchampin: I don’t know how many, just that we don’t exclude the possibility of having another one in the future.
15:32:33 [gkellogg]
15:32:55 [pchampin]
ack thomas
15:33:20 [gkellogg]
thomas: I see the time pressure, but if it’s named “Final Report”, I don’t see how we have several of them.
15:34:33 [gkellogg]
gkellogg: We’re bound by the set of possible W3C document types, “draft” and “final”.
15:35:18 [gkellogg]
thomas: We could try to get the vocabulary right as James or I have proposed for the next 2-3 weeks. If we don’t get agreement, then we can defer, otherwise try to include.
15:35:36 [pchampin]
15:36:59 [james]
nb. i am not even proposing that we get it "right", just the the document indicates some application of the terms
15:37:35 [gkellogg]
thomas: Can we agree to work on it over the next three weeks?
15:37:55 [gkellogg]
pchampin: This work is a side-project for all of us, so we don’t have strict deadlines anyway.
15:38:03 [AndyS]
15:38:11 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
15:39:12 [gkellogg]
AndyS: We can have multiple final reports, or split it into parts. Delaying on this point ...
15:39:45 [gkellogg]
… I think it will interest other people, and we had an agreement on the process, but if we keep changing it, I lose confidence.
15:40:15 [thomas]
15:40:16 [gkellogg]
pchampin: Our first priority is to get a report out, and wanted to mention the section even if it’s not complete.
15:40:42 [gkellogg]
… It’s a question of what the editor’s prorities are in the coming weeks. Merging the current PRs or working on a new PR.
15:41:01 [pchampin]
15:41:13 [pchampin]
ack thomas
15:41:41 [gkellogg]
thomas: I feel that more people want to postpone it, but I feer that it will be postponed for a long time.
15:42:02 [gkellogg]
pchampin: That’s reallly not the goal, there is a section that will need to be filled.
15:42:38 [pchampin]
STRAWPOLL: change to a call every 2 weeks start now
15:42:51 [pchampin]
15:42:59 [james]
15:43:04 [ora]
15:43:12 [gkellogg]
15:43:14 [TallTed]
15:43:20 [thomas]
-1 for a few more weeks
15:43:28 [AndyS]
15:44:11 [thomas]
i could change my vote to -0.5
15:44:15 [pchampin]
let's postpone that decsion
15:44:48 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:44:48 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:44:58 [pchampin]
15:45:28 [pchampin]
15:45:29 [gkellogg]
pchampin: PR #121 has a lot of work done.
15:46:03 [pchampin]
gkellogg: some wordsmithing issues left, but I'm astisfied with the substance
15:46:15 [pchampin]
... I have always found SPARQL equality challenging
15:46:37 [gkellogg]
AndyS: There are some more minor changes needed.
15:46:37 [pchampin]
... I'm passing all the tests.
15:47:08 [gkellogg]
… It’s important to have a stable ordering.
15:47:12 [pchampin]
15:47:18 [pchampin]
15:47:48 [gkellogg]
pchampin: Next was #1164 on Sparql Service Description. I’ll reference that in the TBD section.
15:47:55 [pchampin]
15:48:36 [gkellogg]
… The section on the rationale for transparence/opacity. I noticed that PRs fail on CI, while AndyS’s succeeds.
15:49:13 [gkellogg]
AndyS: I avoided a lot of ReSpec features and just wrote raw HTML. I didn’t have the energy on how to drop in.
15:50:40 [gkellogg]
.. In addition to ARIA, there’s an empty-ID warning.
15:52:02 [gkellogg]
pchampin: To be clear, the idea is that the different semantics proposed in the document could be seen as layers of semantic extensions on top of the first one.
15:52:10 [thomas]
15:52:17 [pchampin]
ack thomas
15:52:19 [gkellogg]
… I didn’t think that would cause too much discussion,
15:52:57 [gkellogg]
thomas: I saw this as marketing. I made a mistake in an answer. I had some things mixed up. I still don’t like what we’re doing.
15:53:09 [gkellogg]
… You’re leaving out common-sense entailments.
15:53:49 [gkellogg]
… I’m not as concerned about it now, but I’d be much happier if we could point to something about semantic extensions, but we don’t have that now.
15:54:33 [gkellogg]
pchampin: I don’t want to have the debate about which is best, because we agreed to say that there was no concensus in the group. You might use this as a semantic extension, or as a replacement, but we couldn’t agree.
15:55:18 [gkellogg]
… The term has a precise definition in the RDF spec. The alternative sematncis work on top of the opaque semantics.
15:55:32 [gkellogg]
thomas: I’m refering to my discussions with olaf.
15:55:50 [gkellogg]
pchampin: I’m just try to get to the point where we can merge the PR.
15:56:17 [gkellogg]
… We’ll need to continue on GitHub. The goal was to see if we can make progress.
15:56:21 [pchampin]
15:56:30 [pchampin]
15:56:31 [gkellogg]
pchampin: The charter hasn’t progressed.
15:57:01 [gkellogg]
… We haven’t done anything on the media-type or conneg discussions yet.
15:57:47 [gkellogg]
… AndyS mentioned that it could break some things.
15:57:56 [james]
15:58:23 [pchampin]
ack james
15:58:55 [gkellogg]
james: WRT #175, AndyS requested that it introduce an issue in the sparql-12 group, which I have.
15:59:20 [AndyS]
james - thx
15:59:41 [gkellogg]
thomas: Any feedback on my proposal?
16:00:24 [gkellogg]
pchampin: I see where you’re going. Having an alternative syntax for transparency is interesting, but until we’ve agreed on the vocabulary, I think it’s too early.
16:01:13 [gkellogg]
… I think the issue raised by pfps on non-obvious ramifications is a bit embarassing,
16:01:48 [gkellogg]
… It is dependent on our agreeing on transparency.
16:01:50 [pchampin]
16:07:46 [gkellogg]
zakim, end meeting
16:07:46 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been james, jbollema, ora, gkellogg, thomas, AndyS, olaf, pchampin, TallTed, rivettp
16:07:49 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:07:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Zakim
16:07:52 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, gkellogg; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
16:07:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-star
16:08:26 [gkellogg]
rrsagent, bye
16:08:26 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items