IRC log of rdf-star on 2022-01-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:12:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:12:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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". 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
15:13:55 [pchampin]
agendabot, look for agenda
15:13:55 [agendabot]
pchampin, OK. This may take a minute...
15:13:58 [agendabot]
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]
15:50:51 [pchampin]
Previous meeting:
15:50:57 [pchampin]
Next meeting:
15:56:52 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:01:21 [olaf]
olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:01:31 [olaf]
16:02:36 [rivettp]
rivettp has joined #rdf-star
16:02:54 [Dominik]
Dominik has joined #rdf-star
16:03:00 [gkellogg]
16:03:20 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-star
16:03:21 [ora]
ora has joined #rdf-star
16:03:23 [rivettp]
16:03:28 [ora]
16:03:34 [AndyS]
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]
16:08:07 [olaf]
16:08:20 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
16:08:20 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:08:50 [pchampin]
16:09:02 [fabio_vitali]
fabio_vitali has joined #rdf-star
16:09:13 [fabio_vitali]
16:09:25 [ora]
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]
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]
16:13:44 [pchampin]
ack ora
16:13:53 [pchampin]
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]
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]
-> 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]
-> 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]
16:21:09 [gkellogg]
... This allows you to reason over things that you might not believe in.
16:21:23 [pchampin]
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]
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]
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]
16:28:42 [gkellogg]
pchampin: The last issue was to create a draft blog post for the CG blog.
16:29:05 [pchampin]
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]
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]
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?
16:33:10 [gkellogg]
AndyS: I think we should publish it. It's not designed to be a technical document.
16:33:16 [gkellogg]
16:33:21 [pchampin]
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]
16:35:09 [AndyS]
16:35:09 [olaf]
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]
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]
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]
16:43:10 [pchampin]
16:43:13 [gkellogg]
16:43:18 [AndyS]
16:43:20 [rivettp]
16:43:31 [olaf]
16:43:47 [ora]
16:43:51 [fabio_vitali]
16:43:52 [ora]
16:44:02 [Dominik]
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]
16:44:49 [AndyS]
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]
16:46:36 [gkellogg]
... It's been around for a while, but not sure of its status.
16:46:39 [AndyS]
16:47:01 [gkellogg]
... It's written more from the PG outlook.
16:47:10 [gkellogg]
16:47:44 [ora]
16:47:50 [olaf]
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]
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]
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]
16:54:49 [gkellogg]
AndyS: It was last updated in 2021-09.
16:55:16 [pchampin]
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]
16:59:49 [gkellogg]
... We also need to find chairs. Ora said he'd considered (IIRC).
16:59:56 [pchampin]
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]
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]
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]
17:14:26 [pchampin]
RRSAgent, pointer
17:14:26 [RRSAgent]
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