IRC log of rdf-star on 2021-12-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:46:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:46:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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]
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]
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]
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]
16:02:52 [olaf]
16:03:03 [fabio_vitali]
16:03:04 [fabio_vitali]
16:03:16 [AndyS]
16:03:46 [gkellogg]
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]
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]
16:08:43 [pchampin]
16:08:51 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
16:08:51 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:09:01 [pchampin]
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]
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]
16:14:19 [gkellogg]
pchampin: #64 and #3 were addressed by recent pull requests, so they could be closed.
16:14:25 [pchampin]
16:14:58 [pchampin]
16:15:14 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
16:15:14 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Pending PRs -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:15:28 [pchampin] Conformance text
16:15:53 [olaf]
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]
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]
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]
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]
16:33:38 [pchampin]
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]
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]
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]
16:37:52 [rivettp]
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]
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]
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]
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]
16:48:50 [olaf]
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]
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]
17:00:28 [olaf]
17:00:31 [fabio_vitali]
17:00:32 [ora]
17:01:05 [AndyS]
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]
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]
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 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 :
17:06:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: pchampin to remove the "Taylor-Burton" example from the PR [1]
17:06:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in