Meeting minutes
<Enrico> p+
<ora> Folks, please do "present+" if you are present
ora: Naming proposal
Naming Proposal
<TallTed> halfway there -- https://
<gkellogg> https://
ora: Pierre-Antoine proposal (action item)
<gkellogg> https://
gkellogg: Should we be called "RDF WG" given the wider scope of work?
… consolidate rdf-star, rdf-star-wg mailing lists
tallted: rename rdf-star as rdf-star-cg
… merging does not make sense as different communities
gkellogg: Can we have W3C systeam fwd emails automatically?
ora: distinction escapes most people.
tallted: task force of RDF-star still exists.
ora: Mailing list discussions should go to the public-rdf-star-wg
ora: spec names ...
gkellogg: Precedence is "rdf12-*"
… with "sparql12-*" as "rdf-sparql-*" isn't so short.
… version 12 issues are a long way out.
… previous names - current specs reference previous versions.
andys: what didn't fix was the original 1.0 specs; I suggest we make those consistent.
… That was for the old sparql 1.0 spec.
SPARQL 1.0 - rdf-sparql-query
andys: All older specs should forward to the proper location.
<TallTed> +1 make all the versionless names redirect to the latest versioned doc
<TallTed> (instead of making the user manually click through)
gkellogg: json-ld experience - systeam ensured jsonld* goes to json-ld 1.1 specs.
… normal W3C systeam work process
https://
sparql-query should eventually be the same as sparql12-query. sparql10-query should be the same as the former rdf-sparql-query.
ora: clarification of all detail needed.
gkellogg: ask team contact to check with the W3C system team.
ACTION: staff contact to refine the naming proposal per WG's discussion
<TallTed> I think https://
Enrico's thoughts on modal logic
<Souri> I agree with Ted.
<ora> https://
Enrico: (from email) the fact < :messi :scores :last-WC22-goal > is (1) true in the current world/graph, and (2) it corresponds to the existence of a resource over which we can predicate additional facts
ora: need to discuss this work
… are you suggesting current RDF reification should be revisited?
Enrico: current reification is not defined.
ora: modal logic mentioned in RDF originally but little interest at the time.
<TallTed> need to move on the queue
gkellogg: transparent/opacity In RDF-* not RDF-star, triple is asserted.
… this is something the TF considered. The <<>> is a syntax the triple without asserting it implicitly.
… <<>> is not a context - that is layered via modeling or via named graphs to keep apart
… with our input <<...>> would be need to be asserted as well if intended.
tallted: RDF-* only considered one case - less used by people in the world.
… the <<>> are like "words"
… we need to work with data that exists today
… not require everyone to redo their RDF.
… can say "the sun is black" in a separate named graph to keep things apart
souri: agree with TallTed
… quoted triple useful
… need to capture multiple occurences
… foreign key needs a "name for the triple"
A graph label is a name.
souri: multiple instances of the same triple
<TallTed> Burton+Taylor marriages are a useful foil for the modeling discussion. You *don't know* that your model is broken until their second marriage -- and if you "properly model" for the second (and future), you must also *remodel* all your existing marriage data, for all previous marriages of all previous spouses
<TallTed> No-one will do this. They will find that RDF is indeed too complicated for their use, and they will move on. That would be bad for everyone.
ora: Happy Holidays
<Souri> I agree with Ted.
ora: Please continue on the mailing list