IRC log of rdf-star on 2021-10-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:54:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:54:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:54:27 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:54:28 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
14:54:32 [pchampin]
meeting: RDF-star
14:54:36 [pchampin]
chair: pchampin
14:54:48 [pchampin]
date: 15 Oct. 2021
14:54:55 [pchampin]
Previous meeting:
14:54:55 [pchampin]
Next meeting:
14:55:02 [pchampin]
14:55:02 [agendabot]
clear agenda
14:55:02 [agendabot]
agenda+ Announcements and newcomers
14:55:02 [agendabot]
agenda+ Open actions
14:55:02 [agendabot]
agenda+ Pending Pull-Requests
14:55:02 [agendabot]
agenda+ Issues we may defer to the future WG
14:55:04 [agendabot]
agenda+ Open-ended discussions
14:57:03 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-star
15:00:19 [TallTed]
TallTed has joined #rdf-star
15:00:20 [olaf]
olaf has joined #rdf-star
15:00:34 [Fabio_Vitali]
Fabio_Vitali has joined #rdf-star
15:00:39 [Fabio_Vitali]
15:01:19 [rivettp]
rivettp has joined #rdf-star
15:01:24 [rivettp]
15:01:41 [gkellogg]
15:02:02 [Fabio_Vitali]
15:02:03 [pchampin]
15:02:48 [olaf]
15:03:35 [AndyS]
15:03:40 [TallTed]
15:05:50 [Doerthe]
Doerthe has joined #rdf-star
15:06:10 [pchampin]
scribe: olaf
15:06:17 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:06:17 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Announcements and newcomers -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:06:31 [pchampin]
15:06:40 [olaf]
pchampin: no newcomers
15:06:44 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:06:44 [Zakim]
agendum 1 was just opened, pchampin
15:06:48 [olaf]
... no announcements?
15:06:55 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:06:55 [Zakim]
agendum 1 was just opened, pchampin
15:07:02 [pchampin]
zakim, close agendum 1
15:07:02 [Zakim]
agendum 1, Announcements and newcomers, closed
15:07:03 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:07:03 [Zakim]
2. Open actions [from agendabot]
15:07:14 [Doerthe]
15:07:15 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendabot
15:07:15 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'next agendabot', pchampin
15:07:19 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:07:19 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:07:31 [pchampin]
15:07:47 [olaf]
15:08:19 [olaf]
the open actions are in PRs to be discussed later in this meeting
15:08:22 [pchampin]
15:08:34 [olaf]
pchampin: hence, skip to the next point
15:08:38 [pchampin]
zakim, close agendum 2
15:08:38 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Open actions, closed
15:08:39 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:08:39 [Zakim]
3. Pending Pull-Requests [from agendabot]
15:08:43 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:08:43 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Pending Pull-Requests -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:09:06 [olaf]
... four PRs grouped in one points
15:09:18 [pchampin]
15:09:46 [olaf]
... Gislan not here
15:09:58 [olaf]
... any updates on PR 205?
15:10:20 [olaf]
AndyS: That PR was raised against the wrong branch
15:10:22 [pchampin]
15:10:31 [olaf]
... one massively squashed commit
15:11:02 [olaf]
... at least one comment on the other version of the PR
15:11:12 [olaf]
... closed that version
15:11:29 [olaf]
... something in the checking was not working
15:12:02 [olaf]
gkellogg: no the check is okay
15:12:20 [olaf]
... might have been something in the JSON manifest
15:12:42 [olaf]
AndyS: something was not committed
15:13:17 [olaf]
gkellogg: some issue in terms of equality of the manifests in the different formats
15:13:37 [olaf]
pchampin: will ping Ghislain
15:13:52 [olaf]
... the manifests should be isomorphic
15:14:24 [olaf]
AndyS: two checks now, haven't there been three earlier?
15:14:41 [olaf]
... let's take this offline
15:15:03 [pchampin]
15:15:10 [olaf]
pchampin: That PR has been lingering a while
15:15:21 [pchampin]
subtopic: figure in §1.3
15:15:30 [olaf]
... next subtopic: figure in Sec.1.3
15:15:38 [olaf]
... two proposals made
15:15:55 [olaf]
... unfortunately, the second one is not rendered properly in the preview
15:16:02 [pchampin]
15:16:06 [olaf]
... which might explain why everyone favored the other one
15:16:47 [olaf]
... PR 213 tried to capture the links between the bubbles by means of words
15:16:59 [olaf]
... with eclipses
15:17:07 [pchampin]
15:17:17 [olaf]
... simply uses HTML tables
15:17:28 [olaf]
... PR 214 has an SVG in the background
15:17:45 [olaf]
... which is not visible in the preview
15:17:53 [olaf]
... but in a local clone
15:18:05 [rivettp]
are you able to show the diagrams via Zoom?
15:18:10 [olaf]
... i.e., HTML table with SVG in the background
15:18:24 [Fabio_Vitali]
I see no star
15:18:27 [olaf]
... somewhat hacky
15:18:53 [TallTed]
I prefer the first, even knowing about the background lines. I would like it even better if 5 could be a bit lower than 4 & 6, to naturally sketch more of an arc from 3 to 7.
15:19:10 [Fabio_Vitali]
Ah I see
15:19:15 [pchampin]
15:19:15 [olaf]
... a similar figure may also be added as background in the first proposal
15:19:45 [Fabio_Vitali]
I think that in 213 the top bubble (the subject) is too close to the second layer, and seems part of it. Raising it just a little bit could help, I think
15:19:47 [AndyS]
15:20:16 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
15:20:24 [olaf]
... perhaps we use 213 if everyone is okay with it - there are more important topics
15:20:43 [TallTed]
s/I prefer the first, even knowing about the background lines/I prefer the first (213), even knowing about the background lines (on 214)/
15:20:46 [olaf]
AndyS: the one with SVG look good
15:21:06 [olaf]
... (just checked it locally)
15:21:21 [olaf]
... screensharing now
15:22:08 [olaf]
TallTed: still prefer 213
15:23:11 [olaf]
pchampin: agreed, the grouping in 214 is subjective
15:23:24 [pchampin]
15:23:43 [olaf]
... any strong preference anyone?
15:23:50 [pchampin]
15:23:59 [TallTed]
strong 213, lines could help, moving box 3 to the next lower tr would improve things
15:24:07 [pchampin]
15:24:08 [olaf]
... otherwise will try to merge the results
15:24:15 [TallTed]
s/box 3/box 5/
15:24:18 [olaf]
... no objection
15:24:33 [pchampin]
subtopic: RDF vocabulary
15:24:34 [pchampin] (RDF vocabulary)
15:24:43 [olaf]
... next PR is about the RDF vocab section
15:24:50 [olaf]
... posted recently
15:25:16 [olaf]
... let's not talk about it too much now, because few people may have had the time to look at it in detail
15:25:53 [olaf]
... idea of that PR: moving things around (no new content) but making some things normative
15:26:19 [pchampin]
15:26:36 [olaf]
... substantive changes is the semantics of TEPs to also cover rdf-star:Triple
15:26:40 [gkellogg]
15:26:45 [pchampin]
ack gkellogg
15:27:14 [olaf]
gkellogg: use of TEPs refers to the range of such a TEP, right?
15:27:34 [olaf]
pchampin: no, it can be used for both, subject and object
15:28:21 [olaf]
... there might be corner case in which one would want a TEP that applies only to either the subjects or the objects but not both
15:29:01 [olaf]
... we could add something for that but that would make everything more complex (more vocab needed)
15:29:07 [pchampin]
15:29:15 [Fabio_Vitali]
15:29:23 [pchampin]
Transparency-Enabling Property
15:29:25 [olaf]
gkellogg: okay, but the design trade-off should be captured as a note
15:29:27 [Fabio_Vitali]
15:29:56 [olaf]
15:30:03 [pchampin]
15:30:04 [pchampin]
ack olaf
15:30:48 [pchampin]
olaf: I wouldn't go for seperating domain-wise TEPS and range-wise TEPs
15:30:55 [pchampin]
... this is too much added complexity.
15:31:20 [pchampin]
... I discussed the use-case for TEPs with somebody,
15:31:45 [pchampin]
... and it was not obvious what happened in the examples
15:32:00 [AndyS]
15:32:03 [pchampin]
... (the added leading zero in the literals).
15:32:11 [pchampin]
... Using different IRIs instead would make the difference more visible.
15:32:38 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
15:32:50 [olaf]
15:32:55 [pchampin]
15:33:08 [olaf]
AndyS: agree that D-entailment is not so suitable for this example
15:33:35 [olaf]
... would have prefered the text to be non-normative
15:34:00 [Fabio_Vitali]
from the outside, I can tell that the Linköping is clear in what it entails, but less so on the rationale (why is this needed?) Superman's example is clearer on the rationale
15:34:29 [olaf]
... mixing the discussion of TEPs with the other vocabulary parts is not a good idea
15:35:08 [olaf]
... because TEPs is something that people may disagree with, which is not so much the case for the other vocab terms
15:36:01 [olaf]
... put the TEP part into a separate (sub)section
15:36:22 [olaf]
pchampin: yes we could do that
15:37:14 [olaf]
... last time we kinda agreed to move the semantics of the TEP vocab into a normative section
15:38:07 [olaf]
AndyS: Triple, Graph, and Source are minimal; TEP does not fit into a minimal subset of such a vocab
15:38:44 [olaf]
pchampin: we have many issues related to the vocabulary
15:40:13 [olaf]
... some should be considered as: no agreement
15:40:33 [pchampin]
15:40:47 [olaf]
... the one for the service descriptions are still needed and should be added
15:40:56 [gkellogg]
Perhaps "Conceptual Vocabulary" and "Entailment-enabling Vocabulary"
15:41:12 [AndyS]
15:41:43 [olaf]
... regarding the TEP, agreed that it is more controversial than the aforementioned minimal set and, thus, should be presented somewhat separate from the minimal set
15:42:07 [olaf]
... rdf-star:Triple is also entailment-enabling
15:42:30 [olaf]
... Graph and Source are not
15:42:45 [pchampin]
15:42:55 [olaf]
... prefer to keep the vocab semantics in one part
15:43:13 [pchampin]
15:43:14 [olaf]
... hence, split the vocab section
15:43:27 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
15:43:27 [Zakim]
agendum 4 -- Issues we may defer to the future WG -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:43:44 [pchampin]
15:44:07 [olaf]
pchampin: have marked some issues as "for later"
15:44:42 [olaf]
... should we discuss these issues?
15:45:03 [olaf]
AndyS: 199 is out of scope - Vladimir agreed
15:45:33 [olaf]
pchampin: so, we can close it? ...or mark as "discussion"
15:45:58 [pchampin]
15:46:07 [olaf]
... 170 could be closed
15:46:22 [olaf]
... because the problem has been addressed by means of the TEPs
15:46:40 [pchampin]
15:46:53 [olaf]
... we shouldn't try to do more here but, instead, leave that to the WG
15:46:56 [olaf]
15:47:14 [pchampin]
PROPOSAL: close #170 as addressed by the section on TEPs
15:47:17 [gkellogg]
15:47:17 [pchampin]
15:47:36 [olaf]
15:47:46 [AndyS]
15:47:50 [TallTed]
15:47:55 [Doerthe]
15:48:03 [rivettp]
15:48:34 [olaf]
TallTed: reason for +0.9 is lack of consideration
15:49:20 [fabio]
fabio has joined #rdf-star
15:49:23 [olaf]
Fabio_Vitali: +1
15:49:28 [pchampin]
RESOLVED: close #170 as addressed by the section on TEPs
15:50:14 [olaf]
pchampin: issue about RDF/XML interpretation as RDF-star ...
15:51:14 [olaf]
... proposal was to reinterpret the ID in RDF/XML for RDF-star
15:51:40 [pchampin]
15:51:42 [olaf]
... don't think it should be added to the report
15:51:44 [olaf]
15:52:46 [pchampin]
15:52:52 [olaf]
AndyS: if we were going there (rather not!), it should actually be more general -- RDF reification to RDF-star
15:53:05 [pchampin]
15:53:09 [olaf]
pchampin: there was also an issue from James
15:53:40 [olaf]
... wants complete grammars for all media types touched by the report
15:53:42 [gkellogg]
15:53:57 [pchampin]
ack gkellogg
15:54:06 [olaf]
... I would rather not do that
15:54:17 [AndyS]
+1 to pchampin.
15:54:29 [olaf]
gkellogg: yes agree, including it in the report would be burdensome
15:55:08 [olaf]
... however, we may include extra EBNF grammar files and link to them from the report
15:55:29 [olaf]
pchampin: good idea, and that should address James' concern
15:55:41 [olaf]
... Greg, do you have such files already?
15:55:51 [olaf]
15:55:52 [fabio]
15:56:36 [olaf]
gkellogg: give me an action
15:57:10 [olaf]
AndyS: at such late stage, make these EBNF files non-normative
15:57:15 [pchampin]
action gkellog to create a PR with text version of the EBNF grammars
15:57:23 [olaf]
... EBNF does not include parser actions
15:57:34 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:57:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate TallTed
15:57:42 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:57:52 [pchampin]
ACTION: gkellog to create a PR with text version of the EBNF grammars
15:58:05 [gkellogg]
15:58:12 [pchampin]
15:58:35 [olaf]
pchampin: will fix the minutes ;-)
15:59:12 [olaf]
... What should be done for the future WG?
15:59:18 [pchampin]
15:59:36 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:59:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate TallTed
15:59:49 [olaf]
... thanks everyone for today
15:59:51 [fabio]
Thank you
15:59:52 [AndyS]
15:59:53 [fabio]
15:59:56 [olaf]
... talk again in two weeks
15:59:59 [Doerthe]
16:00:01 [olaf]
16:00:12 [olaf]
olaf has left #rdf-star
16:00:36 [TallTed]
s/ACTION: gkellog to create a PR with text version of the EBNF grammars//
16:00:43 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:00:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate TallTed
16:03:18 [TallTed]
s/ACTION: gkellog to create a PR with text version of the EBNF grammars/ /
16:03:24 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:03:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate TallTed
16:11:10 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:34:28 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:44:08 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:02:14 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:19:15 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:29:46 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:52:09 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:54:20 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:22:03 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:57:54 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:05:52 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:48:09 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:07:22 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:41:04 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:57:58 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:12:46 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:27:27 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:49:37 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:07:33 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:41:49 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:56:45 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:13:35 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:47:25 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star