15:12:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:12:31 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/01/21-rdf-star-irc
15:12:34 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:12:35 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
15:12:41 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star
15:13:19 <pchampin> agendabot, look for agenda
15:13:19 <agendabot> pchampin, sorry, I don't know which mailing list or calendar is associated with this channel. Try "agendabot, help this is".
15:13:28 <pchampin> agendabot, help this is
15:13:28 <agendabot> pchampin, if you say "agendabot, this is xyz", I will remember the calendar "group/wg/xyz" (or similar), and the mailing list "xyz" (or "public-xyz", "www-xyz", "member-xyz", "w3c-xyz" or "team-xyz" or "w3t-xyz", whichever I can find and read) and use it to search for agendas. You can also give the
15:13:28 <agendabot> … URL: "agendabot this is https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xyz/". Multiple lists is also possible. Just separate the names or URLs with commas or with the word "and".
15:13:41 <pchampin> agendabot, this is rdf-star
15:13:42 <agendabot> pchampin, OK, using https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/
15:13:55 <pchampin> agendabot, look for agenda
15:13:55 <agendabot> pchampin, OK. This may take a minute...
15:13:58 <agendabot> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2022Jan/0062.html
15:13:58 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:13:58 <agendabot> agenda+ Announcements and newcomers
15:13:58 <agendabot> agenda+ Open actions
15:13:58 <agendabot> agenda+ WG chartering
15:14:01 <agendabot> agenda+ Open-ended discussions
15:50:34 <pchampin> chair: pchampin
15:50:41 <pchampin> present+
15:50:51 <pchampin> Previous meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2022-01-07.html
15:50:57 <pchampin> Next meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2022-02-04.html
15:56:52 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:01:21 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:01:31 <olaf> present+
16:02:36 <rivettp> rivettp has joined #rdf-star
16:02:54 <Dominik> Dominik has joined #rdf-star
16:03:00 <gkellogg> present+
16:03:20 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
16:03:21 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
16:03:23 <rivettp> present+
16:03:28 <ora> present+
16:03:34 <AndyS> present+
16:05:22 <gkellogg> scribe+ gkellogg
16:05:24 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
16:05:24 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements and newcomers -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:06:59 <gkellogg> Dominik: my first time here. I work in University in Poland. subjects RDF and Property Graphs.
16:07:26 <gkellogg> ... I'm also in the N3 CG, LDCPH WG also working on Property Graphs and Schema.
16:07:47 <ora> RDF and PGs, sounds interesting!
16:08:06 <pchampin> q?
16:08:07 <olaf> s/LDCPH/LDBC Schema
16:08:20 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
16:08:20 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:08:50 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction
16:09:02 <fabio_vitali> fabio_vitali has joined #rdf-star
16:09:13 <fabio_vitali> +present
16:09:25 <ora> q+
16:09:38 <gkellogg> pchampin: Some of these actions were about reaching out to developers.
16:09:57 <gkellogg> ora: I was to write a blog post and to talk to PatH.
16:10:08 <gkellogg> pchampin: I ment Olaf :)
16:10:13 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/240
16:10:38 <gkellogg> olaf: I emailed Ontotext and Pavel from Star Dog. They both responded.
16:10:59 <gkellogg> ... Pavel has to check with the rest of the company, and wants to look again at our report.
16:11:25 <gkellogg> ... In which case many tests may have failed and they may not be excited about publishing.
16:11:53 <gkellogg> ... What they had implemented was for PG mode, so even we have SA mode, most likely many of their tests will fail.
16:12:17 <gkellogg> ... I need to follow up with Pavel.
16:12:37 <gkellogg> ... Ontotext immediately replied that they would be happy to send an implementation report.
16:12:50 <gkellogg> ... Generally, they're positive and we can expect something sometime.
16:13:27 <gkellogg> ... OTOH, he also involved RDF4J as they have a shared implementation, and perhaps it makes sense to have a shared report.
16:13:33 <pchampin> q?
16:13:44 <pchampin> ack ora
16:13:53 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/243
16:14:09 <gkellogg> ora: I started on the blog post but got side-tracked by work responsibilities.
16:14:21 <gkellogg> ... It will be a blog post on the AWS blog.
16:14:35 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/244
16:14:43 <gkellogg> ... I also reached out to Pat Hayes (wonderful credentials).
16:15:03 <gkellogg> ... We talked about the Neptune 1G effort to unify RDF and PG.
16:15:25 <gkellogg> ... I explained my take on RDF-star, which I considered to be important, which he understood.
16:15:48 <gkellogg> ... I said my worry is that we don't open the flood-gates for all kinds of changes to RDF and keep it tightly scoped.
16:16:29 <gkellogg> ... THen we ended up speaking about his B-Logic proposal. It was an ISWC Keynote in 2009.
16:16:32 <pchampin> -> https://www2.slideshare.net/PatHayes/blogic-iswc-2009-invited-talk Pat Haye's BLogic
16:16:45 <gkellogg> pchampin: This pops up regularly, paerticularly in N3 CG
16:17:13 <gkellogg> ora: For due diligence, we should read his slides carefully.
16:17:30 <gkellogg> ... THat said, I want to be sure we keep RDF-star tightly scoped.
16:17:46 <gkellogg> ... It will be very interesting for many people to read his ideas.
16:18:01 <pchampin> -> http://videolectures.net/iswc09_hayes_blogic/ Pat Haye's BLogic talk
16:18:03 <gkellogg> ... It extends RDF semantics, without replacing any.
16:18:21 <pchampin> that is, if you have a "modern browser" with flash enabled!!
16:18:24 <gkellogg> ... It basically extends RDF to a full 1st order Predicate Calculus.
16:18:40 <gkellogg> ... It also has an interesting take on Named Graphs.
16:19:05 <gkellogg> pchampin: I also posted a version that requires Flash to view.
16:19:36 <gkellogg> ... The slides are on slideshare, but there was a video lecture where you need flash.
16:19:55 <gkellogg> ... I agree that B-Logic is interesting, although it goes beyond our tight scope.
16:20:16 <gkellogg> ... I have some thoughts on defining RDF-star on top of B-Logic.
16:20:47 <gkellogg> ora: Interesting is what he calls "surfaces", both negative and positive and neutral.
16:21:07 <pchampin> q?
16:21:09 <gkellogg> ... This allows you to reason over things that you might not believe in.
16:21:23 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/241
16:22:10 <gkellogg> pchampin: This action was on my reaching out to Corese implementers. They have an implementation which complies (mostly).
16:22:30 <gkellogg> ... THey're willing to upgrade Corese and implement a submission report.
16:22:42 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/242
16:22:54 <gkellogg> pchampin: Next is RDF4J.
16:23:15 <gkellogg> AndyS: I emailed Jerven, who isn't that keen on submitting a report.
16:23:34 <gkellogg> ... Theirs tracks more the PG mode of the old spec.
16:23:53 <olaf> q+
16:24:21 <gkellogg> ... I haven't pushed them any further, even if it is via reification, I don't know why they couldn't pass the test suite.
16:24:39 <gkellogg> pchampin: The semantics might pose a problem for them.
16:24:57 <gkellogg> AndyS: I believe they do have an EARL report generator.
16:25:19 <pchampin> ack olaf
16:28:10 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/245
16:28:42 <gkellogg> pchampin: The last issue was to create a draft blog post for the CG blog.
16:29:05 <pchampin> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h84N2HnKxc7m-TPH4_Zu4L4ja9NJnKnv70ay6iOLuXo/edit
16:29:33 <gkellogg> ... From my perspective, the post is in good shape. Compared with the initial plan, the scope of the post is smaller.
16:29:55 <gkellogg> ... I thought there was enough content. It focuses on Provenance.
16:30:28 <gkellogg> ... Including simple statements, and more going on to complex.
16:31:19 <gkellogg> ... One point was to have some arguments to bring to the issue raised by PFPS a couple of weeks ago about the examples in the report being broken because they don't use intermediary nodes.
16:31:25 <pchampin> q?
16:32:06 <gkellogg> ... We worked on the Google Doc and not on the mailing list to try to constrain the conversation before it is posted.
16:32:35 <gkellogg> ... I propose we publish it right now.
16:32:38 <olaf> q+
16:32:38 <rivettp> looking at it now, I'd liek to chiem in
16:32:56 <rivettp> give me until end of day please
16:33:00 <pchampin> PROPOSAL: publish the CG blog post ASAP
16:33:09 <fabio_vitali> can I have access please? Fvitali@gmail.com
16:33:10 <gkellogg> AndyS: I think we should publish it. It's not designed to be a technical document.
16:33:16 <gkellogg> +1
16:33:21 <pchampin> +1
16:34:33 <gkellogg> olaf: I didn't have a chance to look at it, but if you're fine with it I say go ahead and publish.
16:34:39 <olaf> q-
16:35:09 <AndyS> +1
16:35:09 <olaf> +0
16:35:16 <rivettp> are we using US English or British English?
16:35:43 <AndyS> English English
16:35:45 <rivettp> in US it's modeling
16:36:13 <rivettp> I'd vote for publishing Monday
16:36:13 <fabio_vitali> q+
16:36:26 <pchampin> ack fabio_vitali
16:36:45 <gkellogg> fabio_vitali: What kind of feedback are you looking for?
16:37:06 <gkellogg> pchampin: The idea was to write it collectively.
16:37:42 <gkellogg> ... On the blog we would credit the RDF-star task force, so everyone has a chance to contribute.
16:38:13 <gkellogg> fabio_vitali: If I have some opinions on the appropriateness would you like comments in the doc, a mail, or what?
16:38:29 <gkellogg> pchampin: We can start the conversation here.
16:38:51 <gkellogg> fabio_vitali: One problem I have is about the negative example.
16:39:29 <gkellogg> ... It may be too early to talk about limitations of RDF-star. I also think there's a more correct solution to prevent the errors from occuring.
16:40:10 <gkellogg> ... The problem may then disappear which could become advice. (using two levels of nesting).
16:40:44 <gkellogg> pchampin: I'm not sure I agree in this situation. The goal isn't to claim that the proposed solution is the only way to do it, but to highlight the use of additional nodes.
16:41:00 <gkellogg> ... A agree that in some cases double-nesting might be a solution.
16:41:14 <gkellogg> ... Do we agree that the negative example is broken?
16:41:40 <gkellogg> ... It's not just about bad modeling, it's "lossy".
16:41:53 <rivettp> OK I've finished it now and am happy with it - I suggested some changes e.g. to use "SPARQL-star"
16:41:59 <gkellogg> fabio_vitali: I wouldn't say "broken", but yes.
16:42:21 <AndyS> q+
16:42:21 <fabio_vitali> Sorry about the Latin, but this is a case of "Excutatio non petita, accusatio manifesta": if you make excuses that are not requested, you are accusing yourself of something nobody would have cared about.
16:42:29 <gkellogg> pchampin: Lets continue discussion into the beginning of next week.
16:42:53 <pchampin> PROPOSAL: publish the CG blog post in the beginning of next week
16:43:10 <AndyS> q-
16:43:10 <pchampin> +1
16:43:13 <gkellogg> +1
16:43:18 <AndyS> +1
16:43:20 <rivettp> +1
16:43:31 <olaf> +1
16:43:47 <ora> 1+
16:43:51 <fabio_vitali> +1
16:43:52 <ora> +1
16:44:02 <Dominik> +1
16:44:05 <pchampin> RESOLVED: publish the CG blog post in the beginning of next week
16:44:24 <gkellogg> pchampin: We'll continue the conversation on the Google Doc.
16:44:42 <olaf> q+
16:44:49 <AndyS> q+
16:44:59 <pchampin> ack olaf
16:45:19 <gkellogg> olaf: Since you mention DanBri, I think the final report isn't published on the CG page yet.
16:45:35 <gkellogg> pchampin: Yes, I don't think Dan responded to my email.
16:45:40 <pchampin> action: ping Dan for publishing the final report
16:45:51 <pchampin> ack AndyS
16:46:04 <fabio_vitali> I added a comment on the Google Docs message
16:46:18 <gkellogg> AndyS: there is a proposal from Oracle for RDF-N that addresses some of the PG issues.
16:46:29 <AndyS> https://blogs.oracle.com/oraclespatial/post/rdfn-extending-rdf-to-support-named-triples
16:46:36 <gkellogg> ... It's been around for a while, but not sure of its status.
16:46:39 <AndyS> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rdfn-name-every-triple-quad-manually-member-otherwise-das-ph-d-/
16:47:01 <gkellogg> ... It's written more from the PG outlook.
16:47:10 <gkellogg> s/RDF-N/RDFn/
16:47:44 <ora> q+
16:47:50 <olaf> q+
16:48:00 <gkellogg> ... I don't suggest we do anything about it in particular, except that we've noticed it. I don't think its anything more than a theoretical proposal.
16:48:28 <gkellogg> pchampin: Should we mention it?
16:48:44 <gkellogg> AndyS: Unless we do a comprehensive survey, we would have missed other things likelly.
16:48:57 <fabio_vitali> I have been trying to suggest that rdf-star start thinking about non-asserted named graphs, too
16:49:51 <gkellogg> pchampin: Named graphs are introduced, but not the main point.
16:49:51 <fabio_vitali> q+
16:50:37 <gkellogg> ... It depends on how a property is defined, but ends up with repeated triples.
16:51:05 <gkellogg> pchampin: This could be modeled or emulated on RDF-star, as it gives you the ability to refer to a triple.
16:51:30 <pchampin> q?
16:51:34 <gkellogg> AndyS: It may be a slightly higher-level model, but it has details to be figured out.
16:51:43 <pchampin> ack ora
16:51:58 <gkellogg> ora: I read Oracle's proposal and found it interesting. I think we should encourage them to join the WG.
16:52:07 <gkellogg> ... I can reach out to the author.
16:52:18 <gkellogg> AndyS: I told them there's going to be a WG.
16:52:52 <pchampin> ack olaf
16:52:58 <gkellogg> ora: We found in original RDF group that the more people you bring in the room, the better.
16:53:17 <gkellogg> olaf: I wanted to say that he'll probably show up in the WG with this proposal as a counter-proposal.
16:53:40 <gkellogg> ... I read it some time ago, but didn't think it really did enough and doesn't have clear definitions.
16:54:06 <gkellogg> pchampin: I think it makes sense to be pro-active.
16:54:07 <pchampin> ack fabio_vitali
16:54:35 <gkellogg> fabio_vitali: This article is two years old. I wonder if they've gone on to do something with it, or it just was an arbitrary statement.
16:54:47 <pchampin> q?
16:54:49 <gkellogg> AndyS: It was last updated in 2021-09.
16:55:16 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction
16:55:55 <gkellogg> pchampin: I created two small PRs to the charter about RDF/XML and additional specifications to be included in the charter.
16:56:07 <rivettp> regarding implementation reports has anyone reached out to Cambridge Semantics for Anzo? They have a presentation about rdf-star on their website
16:56:11 <gkellogg> ... This will depend on proposals emerging, and then re-charter to include.
16:56:33 <gkellogg> ... But, we keep the door open for producing other normative documents.
16:57:49 <gkellogg> ... We'll focus on the charter in the next call. In the mean time, I'll try to iron out the missing details, but please comment on the issues and PRs.
16:58:13 <gkellogg> ... I think we need to list all the SPARQL documents so that they can be consistent.
16:59:18 <gkellogg> ... I'd like us to discuss the charter and consider submitting it to the semweb mailing list before going to the official process.
16:59:22 <fabio_vitali> why "next week"? Not in two weeks?
16:59:40 <fabio_vitali> thanks
16:59:49 <gkellogg> ... We also need to find chairs. Ora said he'd considered (IIRC).
16:59:56 <pchampin> q?
17:00:17 <ora> I would consider, depending on my employer's opinion on this.
17:00:22 <gkellogg> AndyS: How many chairs are typical now?
17:00:38 <gkellogg> pchampin: Now two chairs are most common.
17:01:32 <gkellogg> pchampin: We also need to consider editors, but Chairs are most important and need to be on the charter.
17:02:25 <gkellogg> ... PhilA is probably going to chair the RDF C14N WG.
17:02:52 <pchampin> q?
17:03:35 <gkellogg> rivettp: I mentioned Cambridge Semantics.
17:03:42 <gkellogg> pchampin: No one has reached out that I know of.
17:03:48 <gkellogg> AndyS: I might have a contact.
17:04:01 <gkellogg> olaf: I have contacts too, I'll reach out.
17:04:12 <pchampin> action olaf to reach out to Cambridge Semantics (Anzo)
17:04:19 <pchampin> action: olaf to reach out to Cambridge Semantics (Anzo)
17:04:31 <pchampin> q?
17:04:49 <fabio_vitali> thank you and bye
17:04:57 <gkellogg> pchampin: back in two weeks.
17:06:46 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
17:13:07 <pchampin> rssagent, where
17:13:40 <pchampin> RRSAgent, where
17:13:40 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'where', pchampin.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:13:50 <pchampin> RRSAgent, where am I
17:13:50 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'where am I', pchampin.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:14:15 <pchampin> RRSAgent, where am I?
17:14:15 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2022/01/21-rdf-star-irc#T17-14-15
17:14:26 <pchampin> RRSAgent, pointer
17:14:26 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2022/01/21-rdf-star-irc#T17-14-26
17:59:44 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:16:38 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:33:14 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:49:35 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:58:45 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:02:27 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:02:51 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:37:08 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:53:40 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:10:39 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star