15:46:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:46:31 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/12/03-rdf-star-irc
15:46:33 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:46:34 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
15:46:39 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star
15:47:05 <pchampin> chair: pchampin
15:47:14 <pchampin> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021Dec/0000.html
15:47:14 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:47:14 <agendabot> agenda+ Announcements and newcomers
15:47:14 <agendabot> agenda+ Open actions
15:47:14 <agendabot> agenda+ Pending PRs
15:47:14 <agendabot> agenda+ Publishing a final report
15:47:16 <agendabot> agenda+ WG chartering
15:47:19 <agendabot> agenda+ Open-ended discussions
15:47:37 <pchampin> zakim, what is the agenda?
15:47:37 <Zakim> I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
15:47:38 <Zakim> 1. Announcements and newcomers [from agendabot]
15:47:38 <Zakim> 2. Open actions [from agendabot]
15:47:38 <Zakim> 3. Pending PRs [from agendabot]
15:47:38 <Zakim> 4. Publishing a final report [from agendabot]
15:47:38 <Zakim> 5. WG chartering [from agendabot]
15:47:38 <Zakim> 6. Open-ended discussions [from agendabot]
15:48:17 <pchampin> regrets: Doerthe
15:48:19 <pchampin> present+
15:58:24 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
15:58:52 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:01:49 <fabio_vitali> fabio_vitali has joined #rdf-star
16:01:56 <fabio_vitali> hello
16:02:16 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:02:19 <pchampin> Hi Fabio
16:02:32 <rivettp> rivettp has joined #rdf-star
16:02:39 <rivettp> present+
16:02:52 <olaf> present+
16:03:03 <fabio_vitali> present+
16:03:04 <fabio_vitali> hello
16:03:16 <AndyS> present+
16:03:46 <gkellogg> present+
16:06:20 <pchampin> scribe: gkellogg
16:06:29 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
16:06:29 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements and newcomers -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:06:46 <pchampin> https://european-big-data-value-forum.eu/
16:07:07 <gkellogg> pchampin: I gave a presentation on Wednesday at the European data event forum.
16:07:20 <gkellogg> ... Not too much time for questions. Slides on the website.
16:07:45 <pchampin> q?
16:08:43 <pchampin> q?
16:08:51 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
16:08:51 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:09:01 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction
16:09:41 <gkellogg> pchampin: Ora's example was to mach a change to the arXiv paper on the seminal example.
16:09:57 <gkellogg> olaf: Ora hadn't mentioned it.
16:10:32 <gkellogg> pchampin: We discussed the common misconceptions of RDF-star should be avoided as much as possible as soon as possible in publications.
16:10:57 <gkellogg> ... Since people may come from reading that paper, they could come with poor expectations.
16:11:45 <gkellogg> olaf: Something I can do is to put a statement into the PDF that refers to the output of this group.
16:11:50 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
16:11:53 <ora> present+
16:11:59 <gkellogg> ... And that the arXiv document isn't up to date right now.
16:12:17 <gkellogg> ... Regarding the example, it might be tricky in that document to describe the problems.
16:12:47 <gkellogg> pchampin: We have a section in the spec which describes the problem, so a paragraph that would reference people to our report would help.
16:13:25 <gkellogg> ... I'll assign #222 to Ora.
16:13:39 <gkellogg> s/Ora/Olaf/
16:14:19 <gkellogg> pchampin: #64 and #3 were addressed by recent pull requests, so they could be closed.
16:14:25 <pchampin> q?
16:14:58 <pchampin> q?
16:15:14 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
16:15:14 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Pending PRs -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:15:28 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/224  Conformance text
16:15:53 <olaf> q+
16:15:58 <gkellogg> AndyS: There are some minor editorial issues to get to.
16:16:35 <gkellogg> ... What I'm trying to do is not to be too prescriptive. People shouldn't be able to claim that a base RDF 1.1 system is RDF-star.
16:17:03 <gkellogg> ... It talks about systems that may read or write RDF-star in at least one form.
16:17:25 <gkellogg> ... SPARQL-star is easier, as there's a test suite.
16:17:33 <pchampin> ack olaf
16:18:09 <gkellogg> olaf: I agree that it's easier for SPARQL-star than RDF-star.
16:18:33 <gkellogg> ... Regarding the syntaxes, maybe we can talk about reporting RDF-star as input or output.
16:18:44 <gkellogg> ... To say "supports RDF-star" may be over-broad.
16:19:24 <gkellogg> AndyS: This was a heavyweight day of allowing things that only input to conform (or output only).
16:19:39 <pchampin> q+
16:19:47 <gkellogg> ... For the rest, I'm not sure what else we can say other than observing input and output.
16:19:56 <gkellogg> q+
16:20:24 <gkellogg> olaf: The question was not to talk about systems supporting RDF-star, but those that support it as input and separately as output.
16:20:40 <pchampin> ack pchampin
16:21:10 <gkellogg> pchampin: For me, olaf's proposal doesn't change the conformance classes, but renames them to something less "promising".
16:22:11 <gkellogg> ... What the independent classes don't cover is the ability to output one format given another.
16:22:34 <pchampin> ack gkellogg
16:23:34 <gkellogg> q-
16:23:58 <gkellogg> AndyS: It doesn't say anything about preserving data in the system, and base RDF does not either.
16:24:41 <gkellogg> AndyS: I didn't put anything in about semantics, as it isn't observable.
16:25:00 <gkellogg> ... I don't know of a semantics test of an RDF system.
16:25:42 <gkellogg> pchampin: Somehow, the semantics suite captures a missing part between input and output.
16:25:56 <gkellogg> ... But, not all RDF systems have a way to check for simple entailment.
16:27:52 <gkellogg> ... I think adding the semantics test suite to the conformance section would be a problem.
16:28:17 <gkellogg> pchampin: The 1.1 specs also just list it in the header, but the conformance section is quite general.
16:29:12 <gkellogg> gkellogg: maybe some group would consider entailment regime tests for SPARQL.
16:29:23 <gkellogg> pchampin: I agree, that might not help us finish out work.
16:30:16 <gkellogg> olaf: This is now about the syntax tests, but explicitly requiring a system to pass at least one would rule out a system support JSON-LD-star only.
16:30:37 <gkellogg> gkellogg: we should implicitly include other systems.
16:31:19 <pchampin> RDF 1.1 Concepts: "Implementations cannot directly conform to RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax, but can conform to such other specifications that normatively reference terms defined here."
16:32:12 <gkellogg> pchampin: That's their way of not restricting to different serializations.
16:32:39 <gkellogg> AndyS: RDF 1.1 concepts has no observable concrete syntaxes.
16:33:05 <pchampin> q?
16:33:38 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/225
16:34:02 <gkellogg> pchampin: The idea was to put something into the introduction to reference important concepts elsewhere in the document.
16:34:31 <gkellogg> ... We noted people coming with some expectations which were wrong, and wanted to signal these early.
16:34:47 <gkellogg> ... I kept it short and just add pointers to in-depth discussions.
16:35:15 <gkellogg> ... But, it seemed important to add more about occurrences and added a new example.
16:35:37 <gkellogg> ... I think it is complementary to other examples and highlights different use cases.
16:36:01 <pchampin> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/225.html#occurrences-example
16:36:30 <gkellogg> pchampin: This example is about a triple being added by different people, so it is a provenance use case.
16:36:46 <gkellogg> ... It's about the triple itself, but not about a statement itself.
16:36:46 <pchampin> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/225.html#married-example
16:37:14 <gkellogg> pchampin: The added example is about Liz Taylor marrying Richard Burton twice.
16:37:45 <gkellogg> ... I think the second example nicely complements the first one; it's not strictly provenance related, but can happen in other situations.
16:37:48 <pchampin> q?
16:37:52 <rivettp> q+
16:37:56 <pchampin> ack rivettp
16:38:28 <gkellogg> rivettp: My concern is that we're representing marriage as a resource, and a triple is rather fragile.
16:38:41 <gkellogg> ... How would it be describe with Richard Burton as the subject?
16:38:51 <fabio_vitali> I said that
16:39:08 <gkellogg> pchampin: We need to be precise on if we're describing the wedding or the marriage.
16:40:02 <AndyS> q+
16:40:07 <gkellogg> ... About representing either as resources, I agree. But this answers and expectation by people coming from the PG world about why it's interesting to have properties on edges and to have multiple edges.
16:40:46 <gkellogg> rivettp: My concern is the reverse, normal RDF would a relationship and I'm not sure ...
16:41:11 <gkellogg> pchampin: This doesn't describe the problem of inverting the subject.
16:41:42 <gkellogg> ... We're defining resources to describe the weddings, but the added value is that we still have an arc between the two.
16:41:54 <gkellogg> ... That arc could be inferred by OWL, for example.
16:42:04 <fabio_vitali> q+
16:42:05 <gkellogg> ... But somehow we have the best of both worlds.
16:42:39 <gkellogg> rivettp: Independent of property direction, we don't describe inverse relationships.
16:42:41 <pchampin> ack AndyS
16:43:12 <gkellogg> AndyS: The graph database for Neo4J has a section an anti-patterns about annotating arcs.
16:43:43 <gkellogg> ... Even in the PG world, there is recognition that using the graph as a network graph doesn't always get you the patterns you want.
16:44:14 <gkellogg> ... The marriage example is different, as I think legally, these are separate marriages. In natural language we don't refine those details.
16:44:26 <gkellogg> pchampin: I'm interested in the anti-pattern page.
16:44:47 <gkellogg> ... We should be carful to not try to support examples which are anti-patterns.
16:45:07 <gkellogg> AndyS: If you're annotating a first-class thing in the graph ...
16:45:11 <pchampin> ack fabio_vitali
16:45:44 <gkellogg> fabio_vitali: I would like to identify the conceptual item that makes my graph true.
16:46:11 <gkellogg> ... In this case that RDF-star identifies something about a triple that makes the graph true. It's about the triple and not the face.
16:46:45 <gkellogg> ... What makes me dubious is that the statement is about the marriage and not the statement. It should be about contextual information.
16:47:14 <pchampin> q?
16:47:42 <gkellogg> ... Is it appropriate to use the "occurrence" keyword rather than trying to identify the truth of a statement based on the information around it.
16:48:16 <gkellogg> pchampin: I think the two examples are at opposite ends of the spectrum of facts vs statements.
16:48:34 <gkellogg> ... I've felt that people using RDF-star needed all of these use cases.
16:48:47 <gkellogg> ... It goes in Andy's point about anti-patterns.
16:48:48 <pchampin> q?
16:48:50 <olaf> q+
16:48:54 <pchampin> ack olaf
16:49:29 <gkellogg> olaf: I don't have a problem with having the example. But, having it in this section may be misleading and cause more harm than good.
16:49:55 <gkellogg> ... As you notice, this example has some additional assumptions, namely that the occurrence property is transparent.
16:50:21 <gkellogg> pchampin: It should be renamed to remove that false impression.
16:51:04 <gkellogg> olaf: I see the section about the possibility of talking about occurrences of triples and not of the things the triple describe.
16:51:17 <gkellogg> ... There's a difference with the two examples in this regard.
16:51:51 <gkellogg> pchampin: This discussion shows that it may bring more confusion than clarity, so I would be willing to remove the example.
16:52:03 <fabio_vitali> We could invent a different example dealing with triples rather than relationships
16:52:26 <gkellogg> ... My conclusion is that the new example probably does more harm than good.
16:52:42 <gkellogg> ... It is orthogonal to other things in the introduction.
16:52:58 <gkellogg> olaf: Do we have any other example that speaks to PG peoples use cases?
16:53:15 <gkellogg> ... This question will keep coming up, so it would be good to have such an example.
16:53:28 <gkellogg> ... Even if it's not perfect, but to show that it is possible.
16:54:26 <gkellogg> pchampin: Could this be done elsewhere, perhaps in a blog post? The example in the report may create too much confusion.
16:54:48 <ora> q+
16:54:51 <gkellogg> ... We could agree to work on a series of blog posts that describes the relationship between PGs and RDF-star.
16:54:56 <pchampin> ack ora
16:55:09 <gkellogg> ora: I like the proposal too and would participate.
16:55:23 <gkellogg> ... For this report, I don't think we should rock the boat too much.
16:55:33 <gkellogg> ... Having a separate post might help prevent that.
16:55:55 <gkellogg> pchampin: I'll remove the example from the PR.
16:56:11 <pchampin> ACTION: pchampin to remove the "Taylor-Burton" example from the PR
16:56:22 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
16:56:22 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Publishing a final report -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:57:32 <gkellogg> pchampin: We have a couple of other minor PRs. That's all we have left for PRs, and it would be nice to be able to publish at least another public draft if not a final report.
16:57:50 <gkellogg> ... I was expecting to have another call in two weeks unless people it's too close to Christmas.
16:57:53 <rivettp> 17th is fine for me
16:58:03 <ora> I can do 17th
16:58:14 <fabio_vitali> Just wondering if it makes sense to use the occurrence pattern as a way not only to count occurrences of the same triple in different datasets, but to evaluate different levels of confidence different people may have about the same statement
16:58:20 <gkellogg> AndyS: How do we declare ourselves finished? (by publishing the report)
16:58:48 <gkellogg> pchampin: We might still meet to discuss the charter or blog post, but after the final report we can claim success.
16:59:12 <gkellogg> AndyS: Further issues can then point to the WG.
16:59:45 <gkellogg> pchampin: So, we have two more weeks to iron up the pending PRs. Other than the example, it's mostly editorial.
17:00:12 <pchampin> PROPOSAL: handle the remaining PRs until the next call (2021-12-17) and publish a final report then
17:00:17 <gkellogg> +
17:00:18 <pchampin> +1
17:00:28 <olaf> +1
17:00:31 <fabio_vitali> +1
17:00:32 <ora> +1
17:01:05 <AndyS> +1
17:01:17 <gkellogg> ora: what do we do about remaining issues?
17:01:20 <fabio_vitali> I got to go. See you on the 17th
17:01:42 <pchampin> is:issue is:open -label:discussion -label:use-case -label:later
17:02:12 <gkellogg> pchampin: These issues are explicitly things that are open discussions.
17:02:46 <pchampin> is:issue is:open -label:discussion -label:use-case -label:later
17:03:02 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Adiscussion+-label%3Ause-case+-label%3Alater
17:03:58 <gkellogg> pchampin: I'll ping Peter on #220, but it could be labeled "discussion" as we're not likely to change anything now.
17:04:14 <pchampin> q?
17:05:41 <gkellogg> zakim, end the meeting
17:05:41 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pchampin, rivettp, olaf, fabio_vitali, AndyS, gkellogg, ora
17:05:43 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:05:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/03-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim
17:05:46 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, gkellogg; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:05:50 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
17:06:06 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
17:06:18 <AndyS> rrsagent, please excuse us
17:06:18 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2021/12/03-rdf-star-actions.rdf :
17:06:18 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pchampin to remove the "Taylor-Burton" example from the PR [1]
17:06:18 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2021/12/03-rdf-star-irc#T16-56-11