Meeting minutes
<ora> not me
Announcements and newcomers
<TallTed> New headsets for everyone!
<Fabio> Hello everybody
use case - security labels for publishing attribute-based security of data
Open actions
<pchampin> https://
<pchampin> https://
ora: work for 196 done; will submit a PR.
<pchampin> https://
<Fabio> I have problems in understanding the whole concept of "quoted". Is this the right moment in time to express it or did I just loose the magic moment?
<pchampin> solved by PR https://
pchampin: per-property semantics -- PR in progress
… and in the agenda today
<Fabio> Ok sure no problem
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: intro paragraph - in this meeting
<pchampin> https://
<olaf> Fabio, in the meantime, you can find the definition at: https://
pchampin: tag long-term items. Some done, more to do.
PR #206 Paragraph and figure in the intro
<pchampin> https://
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: guide for reader - doc is not necessarily linear
<Fabio> olaf, andy, ok, I have a very clear idea of what are quoted triples and how they came into being. They used to be called "embedded" up until July. I simply fear the concept of "quoting" can be misleading and imprecise and not totally useful.
TallTed: accessibility for the picture
… literal description for each box
<gatemezing> question: a name or verb for grouping section 2 - ?
AndyS: highlight "section 2" box in some way as the entry point section
<thomas> (someone is typing a lot which makes listening to other audio quite hard)
pchampin: may do SVG - need manual maintenance
<thomas> (okay, then never mind)
<ora> Pull request for Issue #196 created: https://
<Fabio> I have a blind PhD, if that may help
gkellogg: Diagram adequate - extra text can be added
… odd that "section 2" box does not have a title
<gatemezing> +1 to add a title for "section 2"
pchampin: will merge, and continue to refine diagram.
Action: pchampin to make the center bubble more salient and the bold keywords less salient
<pchampin> PROPOSAL: merge PR #206
+1
<TallTed> +1
<pchampin> +1
<olaf> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<thomas> +1
<gatemezing> +1
<Doerthe> +1
<Fabio> +1
<william> +1
<rivettp> +1
<ora> +1
Resolution: merge PR #206
PR #209: New section about selective referential transparency
olaf: context - quoted triples are referentially opaque - they are like literals.
… vocabulary for declaring that a quoted triple can be treated as referentially transparent
… if using an entitlement regime, can derive other nested triples
pchampin: another way to look at it is if a property holds, that property holds for all ref transparent nest triples from the original quoted triple
<pchampin> https://
<pchampin> https://
<olaf> https://
pchampin: PR#209 adds a non-normative section.
thomas: why is it not normative?
pchampin: not sure when starting that it would be mature enough. May be getting there.
… now comfortable to make it normative.
… (personal opinion)
olaf: I am happy to make it normative.
pchampin: to go between 6.3 and 6.4
olaf: can go in section 7
pchampin: so sec 7 introduces an entailment regime
olaf: 6.4.6 can continue to exist for example then refer to sec 7.
pchampin: makes sense
… needs some work for this semantic extension
… does not need all vocab in this section, only certain items of the proposed vocabulary
… easier to merge as is and keep working in new PR
<pchampin> PROPOSAL: merge #209, then make a new PR to move the format parts in §7
<pchampin> +1
<thomas_> +/-0
<olaf> +1
+1
<rivettp> +1
<Doerthe> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<gatemezing> +1
<ora> +1
<TallTed> +1
<william> +1
<william> sorry!
<Fabio> +1
Resolution: merge #209, then make a new PR to move the format parts in §7
Action: pchampin to move the TEP entailment regime to §7 and extend it to the rest of the vocabulary
Issue #3: 'conformance' section
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: some standard boilerplate
… test suite
AndyS: the Conformance section is the place that says "this is RDF-star"
… if anyone claims to support RDF-star, this is where they should look
… currently, system claiming to support RDF-star have very different notions of RDF-star
… following the normative text may still lead to different implementations
… This is not to say that all implementations must pass the whole test suite.
gkellogg: specification makes normative statement and test suite tests the normative statements.
<gkellogg> "Implementers can partially check their level of conformance to this specification by successfully passing the test cases of the JSON-LD test suite. Note, however, that passing all the tests in the test suite does not imply complete conformance to this specification. It only implies that the implementation conforms to aspects tested by the test suite."
gkellogg: some normative statements are hard to test
… JSON-LD example
… JSON-LD example
… conformance to a CG note and a proper WG will provide conformance to changes it makes e.g. to Turtle
… we have tests for TTL, NT (etc), SPARQL (syntax and eval) and semantics
<thomas_> +1 to gkellogg
gkellogg: may be highlight semantics in the conformance section.
pchampin: semantics is the entailment
AndyS: if you implemented the syntax for Turtle,
… would there be any more work to be compliant?
… that would be the practical approach of many implementers
pchampin: have a python script to test implementation using SPARQL-star to test
… approximation to investigate what system did
… support inference in a consistent way
… e.g. don't some "leak" triples not others
<rivettp> gotta drop
olaf: what consequences of semantics does this have?
pchampin: e.g. rdflib - has D-entailment on literals. Triple stores != exactly the triple retrieved
(rdflib is not the only system to do that)
… tests are tagged with an entailment regime. Some are OWL (uses owl:sameAs), some D-entailment.
… conclusion: we need something though still unclear what.
<Fabio> no no go ahead.
<Fabio> you can close now,.
<william> gotta go
bye all!
<gatemezing> thanks all!
<Fabio> thx bye
<gatemezing> bye
<ora> bye
<olaf> Thanks for today! Bye
<Doerthe> bye