IRC log of rdf-star on 2023-10-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:46:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:46:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-irc
14:46:55 [TallTed]
meeting: RDF-star WG biweekly long meeting
14:53:03 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:53:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:53:06 [TallTed]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:53:37 [TallTed]
scribe: TallTed
14:53:37 [TallTed]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/5ecc5c5f-5cd2-410c-b97c-6b13c6b843f1/20231026T110000/
14:53:37 [agendabot]
clear agenda
14:53:37 [agendabot]
agenda+ Discussion of Peters remarks -> 1 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Oct/0042.html & the proposal by the chairs -> 2 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Oct/0071.html
14:53:54 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:54:08 [TallTed]
present+
14:54:39 [TallTed]
scribe: TallTed
14:54:45 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:54:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:57:57 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-star
14:58:07 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rdf-star
14:58:26 [fsasaki]
fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
14:58:53 [ora]
ora has joined #rdf-star
14:59:19 [pfps]
present+
14:59:42 [TallTed]
present+ ora
14:59:45 [AZ]
present+
14:59:46 [TallTed]
present+ AZ
15:00:12 [tl]
tl has joined #rdf-star
15:00:24 [TallTed]
present+ tl
15:00:28 [enrico]
enrico has joined #rdf-star
15:00:58 [fsasaki]
present+
15:01:15 [tl]
present+
15:02:54 [TallTed]
present+ enrico
15:02:54 [TallTed]
Zakim, who's here?
15:02:54 [Zakim]
Present: TallTed, pfps, ora, AZ, tl, fsasaki, enrico
15:02:54 [Zakim]
On IRC I see enrico, tl, ora, fsasaki, pfps, AZ, RRSAgent, Zakim, TallTed, AndyS, draggett, smoothsalt, Timothe, VladimirAlexiev, Tpt, driib, gb, ktk, gtw, csarven, agendabot,
15:02:54 [Zakim]
... pchampin, rhiaro
15:02:55 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:03:09 [TallTed]
present+ draggett
15:03:12 [TallTed]
present+ pchampin
15:03:31 [TallTed]
present+ AndyS
15:03:44 [olaf]
olaf has joined #rdf-star
15:03:49 [olaf]
present+
15:03:59 [AndyS]
present+
15:04:00 [niklasl]
niklasl has joined #rdf-star
15:04:04 [niklasl]
present+
15:04:06 [gkellogg]
present+
15:04:09 [enrico]
present+
15:04:15 [pchampin]
Zakim, who is here?
15:04:15 [Zakim]
Present: TallTed, pfps, ora, AZ, tl, fsasaki, enrico, draggett, pchampin, AndyS, olaf, niklasl, gkellogg
15:04:17 [Zakim]
On IRC I see niklasl, olaf, gkellogg, enrico, tl, ora, fsasaki, pfps, AZ, RRSAgent, Zakim, TallTed, AndyS, draggett, smoothsalt, Timothe, VladimirAlexiev, Tpt, driib, gb, ktk, gtw,
15:04:17 [Zakim]
... csarven, agendabot, pchampin, rhiaro
15:04:26 [TallTed]
chair: ora
15:05:03 [AZ]
I am ready to assist as second scribe when/if Ted gets tired
15:05:49 [TallTed]
Zakim, first agendum
15:05:49 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'first agendum', TallTed
15:05:55 [TallTed]
Zakim, open agendum 1
15:05:55 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Discussion of Peters remarks -> 1 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Oct/0042.html & the proposal by the chairs -> 2
15:05:58 [Zakim]
... https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Oct/0071.html -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:06:14 [TallTed]
subtopic: presentation by @pfps
15:07:15 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-star
15:07:25 [Souri]
present+
15:07:29 [TallTed]
pfps: "Stick to the Basics", i.e., do what we should be doing before going on tangents
15:08:17 [TallTed]
... syntax is less important than what is intended to be communicated through that syntax
15:09:08 [TallTed]
... quoted/named/blank graphs substantially complicate matters
15:10:19 [TallTed]
... proposes satisfying the charter, and declaring victory
15:10:41 [olaf]
q+
15:10:45 [TallTed]
... THEN considering other stuff
15:11:38 [ora]
ack olaf
15:12:11 [pfps]
I'm rather astonished that Zoom worked well for me. :-)
15:12:12 [Dominik_T]
Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
15:12:18 [Dominik_T]
present+
15:12:34 [TallTed]
subtopic: presentation by tl
15:12:45 [pchampin]
pfps's slides: https://www.w3.org/mid/5c79099d-d2d6-957f-804e-d04d1cc2af4a@gmail.com
15:13:41 [pfps]
My slides are on the mailing list at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Oct/0108.html
15:19:31 [TallTed]
[ tl's screenshared doc will be posted to the list, and will appear within https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Oct/ ]
15:24:24 [ora]
q?
15:25:05 [TallTed]
subtopic: presentation by pchampin
15:25:39 [gtw]
present+
15:25:44 [TallTed]
pchampin: sympathizes with pfps concerns of the list of work to be done
15:26:27 [TallTed]
... work around N3 for graph terms, but need to not import all of N3
15:27:37 [TallTed]
... making large changes between early-adopter implementations of un-spec'ed RDF-star, and our output, could break implementer momentum, marking importance of use cases
15:29:05 [TallTed]
... there are issues with repurposing named graphs for quoted/annotated triples ... could work through resolving these issues instead of taking them as reason to invent something else for quoted/annotated triples
15:29:19 [fsasaki]
Apologies that I have to leave early today. Just my +1 to pfps presentation about keeping the focus on rdf-star.
15:30:04 [ora]
Thanks fsasaki
15:30:15 [TallTed]
... our overarching goal should be to produce the smallest spec to satisfy the largest community
15:30:39 [gkellogg]
+1 to pchampin
15:30:41 [TallTed]
q+
15:30:48 [ora]
ack TallTed
15:30:55 [pchampin]
scribe+
15:30:58 [niklasl]
+1 from me too
15:31:14 [pchampin]
TallTed: I'm concerned by the references to "concentrating on RDF-star". It does not exist until we say it does.
15:31:30 [Dominik_T]
+1 to pchampin
15:31:30 [niklasl]
+1 also to Ted: RDF-star is not yet a standard
15:31:43 [olaf]
q+
15:31:43 [pchampin]
... The pre-existing implementation, the "early adopters", they don't implement a standard. They don't interoperate.
15:31:48 [ora]
ack olaf
15:31:57 [pchampin]
... This is red hearring and discard a lot of what we have already done.
15:32:18 [tl]
q+
15:32:23 [TallTed]
s/they don't implement a standard. They don't interoperate/they didn't implement a standard. They don't interoperate/
15:32:23 [ora]
ack tl
15:32:46 [niklasl]
... but GraphDB examples seem to make the seminal example mistake...
15:32:51 [pchampin]
olaf: GraphDB implements exactly what we have in the CG report
15:32:58 [pchampin]
scribe-
15:33:00 [TallTed]
tl: could pchampin elaborate on convergence?
15:33:40 [TallTed]
pchampin: doesn't have a clear idea right now, but mailing list content suggests some threads worth pursuing
15:33:58 [TallTed]
s/convergence/convergence of named graphs and quoted triples/
15:34:06 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:34:21 [TallTed]
subtopic: presentation by AndyS
15:35:41 [TallTed]
[ slidedeck URL to be shared later ]
15:37:57 [TallTed]
q+ to suggest thinking of "blank nodes" as "pronouns" can help with clarity, and by revealing hidden issues
15:39:08 [pchampin]
scribe+
15:39:10 [ora]
ack TallTed
15:39:10 [Zakim]
TallTed, you wanted to suggest thinking of "blank nodes" as "pronouns" can help with clarity, and by revealing hidden issues
15:39:13 [tl]
q+
15:39:20 [pchampin]
TallTed: it can be helpful to think about blank nodes as pronouns
15:39:47 [pchampin]
... without an antecedent, a pronoun has no meaning, but with an antecedant it has a lot of meaning
15:39:55 [pchampin]
... the same for blank nodes: the context makes all the difference
15:40:09 [ora]
ack tl
15:40:15 [pchampin]
... blank nodes can be challenging but are necessary
15:40:43 [pchampin]
tl: did you say that we should standardize graphs?
15:40:57 [niklasl]
I think Andy's point is important; and wonder if bnode skolemization is a "dead end" for accessing bnodes over the web, or a possibility?
15:41:07 [pchampin]
AndyS: I didn't say anything strong one way or another. My point was to insist on "it's the web"
15:41:34 [pchampin]
... I happen to think that if we don't have groups of triples, I'm less confident about triples on their own.
15:41:44 [pchampin]
... But that's not an absolute MUST do.
15:41:54 [pchampin]
... My idea would be a modest way of going forward with quoted graphs.
15:42:24 [TallTed]
subtopic: presentation by niklasl
15:42:27 [pchampin]
scribe-
15:43:29 [TallTed]
niklasl: [ slidedeck "Talking about Occurrences" ... link to deck, or copy of deck, to follow ]
15:56:14 [ora]
q?
15:56:15 [AndyS]
q+
15:56:21 [ora]
ack AndyS
15:56:48 [niklasl]
My presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/e/2PACX-1vT6luSkUUGrOgpl8vn_MZesCcE5c6TY2bNbLRGk_upB-yzTmM8BrnbYl8BMvqO2Qm2ZBNFcjwB9yuDZ/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000&slide=id.p
15:57:06 [TallTed]
AndyS: general comment, not specifically on deck from niklasl -- can't quite square our replacing a chunk of RDF Concepts, with the idea that we have not changed the RDF data model
15:57:19 [gkellogg]
q+
15:57:26 [ora]
ack gkellogg
15:57:28 [TallTed]
ora: Any other presentations waiting?
15:58:05 [TallTed]
gkellogg: another comment... the only way we have to talk about things is through syntax, but we need to be careful about relying on syntax when discussing abstracts
16:00:37 [TallTed]
... nested graphs are graphs within graphs but they don't seem to be represented via triples
16:00:37 [TallTed]
[ please clean and supplement that, as needed ... I've failed to track speech sufficiently to capture even a skim ]
16:01:54 [TallTed]
... in my mind, blank nodes have always had something of a wave/particle dual-nature
16:02:47 [TallTed]
... among other things, you can only refer to them indirectly, and this inevitably loses some pieces of the original through that indirect reference
16:03:37 [TallTed]
scribe-
16:04:01 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:04:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:04:08 [AZ]
ora: various opinions were presented
16:04:15 [AZ]
ora: I'm leaning towwards what pfps proposed
16:04:48 [AZ]
ora: I'm worried about finishing the work
16:05:11 [enrico]
q+
16:05:12 [TallTed]
s/... in my mind,/gkellogg: in my mind,
16:05:22 [ora]
ack enrico
16:05:39 [AZ]
enrico: I agree with you (ora & pfps)
16:05:46 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:05:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:06:24 [niklasl]
q+
16:06:24 [AZ]
... we should provide well thought hooks for those who want to extend the work to graph terms
16:06:24 [pchampin]
i|ora: various opinions were presented|topic: Discussion
16:06:24 [AZ]
... the work is already complex
16:06:43 [ora]
q?
16:07:23 [TallTed]
i/various opinions were presented/scribe: AZ/
16:07:28 [ora]
ack niklasl
16:07:28 [AZ]
... we should have something in a final report about what we know is not going to extend well in the future
16:07:30 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:07:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:07:49 [ora]
q?
16:07:56 [AZ]
niklasl: I'd like to clarify something on what was proposed by pfps
16:08:36 [AZ]
... what I proposed as simple solution, having just syntactic sugar
16:08:59 [TallTed]
s/antecedant/antecedent/
16:09:19 [AZ]
... I'm worried that [TOBE COMPLTED] would complicate things and may harm adoption
16:09:30 [enrico]
q+
16:09:34 [pfps]
q+
16:09:38 [ora]
ack enrico
16:09:51 [AndyS]
Slides -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Oct/0112.html
16:10:13 [AZ]
enrico: reification is something we should not refer to at all when we talk about triple terms/etc
16:10:38 [AZ]
... if we use reification we lose the model theory
16:10:41 [niklasl]
q+
16:11:00 [niklasl]
on the contrary, the subject of a reification is the thing referred to
16:11:01 [AZ]
... a triple term denotes a resource in the real world and we can talk about
16:11:08 [tl]
q+
16:11:24 [AZ]
... but the property rdf:subject, rdf:object are meaningless
16:11:26 [TallTed]
s|Slides -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Oct/0112.html||
16:11:26 [TallTed]
s|[ slidedeck URL to be shared later ]|Slides -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Oct/0112.html|
16:11:30 [ora]
ack pfps
16:11:41 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:11:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:12:20 [ora]
ack niklasl
16:12:20 [AZ]
pfps: I'd be happy to get behind something like quoted triple as syntactic sugar for reification
16:12:20 [AZ]
... I thought it was stil an option on the table
16:12:39 [AZ]
niklasl: happy to hear that [what pfps said]
16:13:07 [AZ]
enrico: if quoted triple are syntactic sugar for reiffication,
16:13:36 [AZ]
... you have in the model theory those spurious properties that are just here to encode a syntactic construct
16:13:41 [pchampin]
q+
16:13:46 [gkellogg]
q+
16:14:14 [AZ]
... these properties represent "tricks" to represent a triple
16:14:24 [ora]
ack tl
16:14:26 [AZ]
... they are meaningless in the real world
16:15:08 [AZ]
tl: nested graphs have a name, and you know what the name denotes
16:15:18 [AZ]
... and they can be nested
16:15:52 [doerthe]
doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:15:55 [AZ]
... graphs compared to triples, going for graphs is much easier than having only triples
16:15:59 [doerthe]
present+
16:16:28 [ora]
q?
16:16:36 [AZ]
... what matters is I query graphs for information, comparing graphs is not important
16:16:55 [ora]
ack pchampin
16:17:34 [AZ]
... maybe I'm missing something and I'd like to understand, but otherwise I'm for graphs
16:17:49 [TallTed]
s|My presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/e/2PACX-1vT6luSkUUGrOgpl8vn_MZesCcE5c6TY2bNbLRGk_upB-yzTmM8BrnbYl8BMvqO2Qm2ZBNFcjwB9yuDZ/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000&slide=id.p||
16:17:49 [TallTed]
s|slidedeck "Talking about Occurrences" ... link to deck, or copy of deck, to follow|slidedeck "Talking about Occurrences": https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/e/2PACX-1vT6luSkUUGrOgpl8vn_MZesCcE5c6TY2bNbLRGk_upB-yzTmM8BrnbYl8BMvqO2Qm2ZBNFcjwB9yuDZ/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000&slide=id.p|
16:17:55 [AZ]
pchampin: comparing graphs is important for some tasks
16:17:58 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:17:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:18:31 [AZ]
... I disagree with enrico about reification not really meaning anything
16:18:49 [AZ]
... I don't see much difference with triple terms
16:18:57 [niklasl]
q+
16:19:28 [AZ]
... RDf-star provided an alternative way of expressing reification that people adopted
16:19:36 [ora]
ack gkellogg
16:19:51 [TallTed]
s|I am ready to assist as second scribe when/if Ted gets tired||
16:20:01 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:20:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:20:08 [AZ]
... I would support triple terms rather than graph terms for acceeptability by the community
16:20:44 [AZ]
gkellogg: quoted triple (as it is defind now) has the same meaning wherever it appears (it's a type, not token)
16:20:58 [AZ]
... while reified triples are tokens
16:21:21 [tl]
q+
16:21:21 [pchampin]
+1 gkellogg, this would mean that
16:21:21 [pchampin]
<< s p o >> :a :b, :c.
16:21:21 [pchampin]
and
16:21:21 [pchampin]
<< s p o >> :a :b.
16:21:22 [pchampin]
<< s p o >> :a c.
16:21:22 [pchampin]
would parse to different graphs
16:21:26 [ora]
ack niklasl
16:22:00 [AZ]
... [SOMETHING] made the problem more apparent
16:23:08 [pchampin]
q++ to disagree with gkellogg, triple terms would then NOT appear in N-Triples
16:23:13 [AZ]
... with triples only we can only talk about one triple if we have an identifier for it
16:23:39 [pchampin]
q-+
16:24:03 [AZ]
niklasl: you can always use an identifier for a triple term or anything
16:24:31 [AZ]
... if quoted triple are syntactc sugar for reification,
16:24:56 [AZ]
... then it make it a token
16:25:19 [pchampin]
q+
16:25:23 [AZ]
... you could still have a way to have types, for isntance with owl keys
16:26:06 [AZ]
... we don't really talk about the abstrac ttripples, we talk about occurrences
16:26:23 [AZ]
... named graphs are, imo, much more powerful
16:26:33 [olaf]
s/isntance/instance
16:26:34 [AZ]
... they have grouping capability
16:26:52 [olaf]
s/abstrac ttripples/abstract tripples
16:27:50 [olaf]
s/abstrac ttripples/abstract triples
16:28:00 [AZ]
... is there something wrong iin the named graphs paper from 2005 wrt singleton edge
16:28:19 [ora]
ack tl
16:28:43 [AZ]
tl: the named graphs paper does too many things
16:28:58 [AZ]
... the semantics of the NG paper is opaque
16:29:03 [pchampin]
the semantics of named graphs is not opaque; it is unspecified
16:29:12 [AZ]
... grouping triples is what people need in practice
16:29:25 [pchampin]
i|the semantics of named graphs is not opaque; it is unspecified|
16:29:41 [pchampin]
s|the semantics of named graphs is not opaque; it is unspecified|
16:30:06 [AZ]
... rdf-star CG discussed adding a proeprty "occurrenceOf"
16:30:34 [AZ]
... but I don't like that, named graphs solves the issue
16:30:45 [ora]
ack pchampin
16:30:49 [AZ]
s/named graphs/nested graphs/
16:31:05 [AZ]
pchampin: reaction to gkellogg's comment
16:31:09 [pchampin]
<< s p o >> would be equivalent to
16:31:09 [pchampin]
[ rdf:subject s; rdf:predicate p; rdf:object o ]
16:31:18 [AZ]
... I don't think there is a problem with N-triples
16:31:53 [ora]
q+
16:32:01 [AZ]
... in N-triples, there would not be the syntax sugar appearing
16:32:16 [AZ]
... another issue I would raise is SPARQL
16:32:26 [AZ]
... in PSARQL if a varibale matches a quoted triple
16:32:38 [AZ]
... I retrieve the quoted triple with its sub, pred, obj
16:33:04 [AZ]
... if we go for syntactic sugar, we would retrieve a bnode, which is useless
16:33:07 [ora]
ack ora
16:33:18 [AZ]
... which is another reason for not going towards syntactic sugar
16:33:22 [niklasl]
But the case for lists today is even worse!
16:33:31 [gkellogg]
q+
16:33:39 [AZ]
ora: you mean it would introduce a bnode identifier
16:33:54 [niklasl]
q+
16:34:15 [gkellogg]
q= to say that yes, they are syntactic sugar in concrete syntaxes such as Turtle
16:34:16 [AZ]
pchampin: if the double angle bracket was syntactic sugar, it could be replaced with square brackets
16:34:25 [gkellogg]
q-
16:34:40 [ora]
ack gkellogg
16:34:49 [ora]
ack niklasl
16:35:07 [AZ]
niklasl: I was typing the example that I mentioned
16:35:18 [niklasl]
Here are all our use cases using quotation dashes (and variant annotation): https://gist.github.com/niklasl/2d02902b81e215b1795981df31927e9b (barring 26)
16:35:42 [pchampin]
q+
16:35:52 [AZ]
... beware it's using the notations to differentiate different things
16:36:25 [ora]
ack pchampin
16:36:37 [AZ]
pchampin: I wanted to respond to tl
16:37:07 [AZ]
... the angle bracket notation is fairly recent
16:37:22 [AZ]
... and I think it was a mistake
16:37:51 [AZ]
... with the current abstract syntax, there can be other ways of writing it
16:38:31 [AZ]
tl: I think it would be better if the notation could expend to something with an identifier
16:38:56 [AZ]
... RDF-star is way too focused on type and that's inpractical
16:38:59 [pchampin]
q+
16:39:12 [ora]
ack pchampin
16:39:16 [AZ]
... it's easier to define but it's much harder to use
16:39:23 [niklasl]
Here are my motivations for -- and {[...] [...]} or {<...>}: https://gist.github.com/niklasl/4f52c32ef2d888c172c8584e36c24610#proposal-rdf-star-annotation-occurrences
16:39:42 [AZ]
pchampin: the situation with the seminal example
16:39:54 [AZ]
... it was not future proof
16:40:31 [AZ]
... quoted triples were always types from the very first definitions
16:41:16 [AZ]
... the seminal example was maybe bad modelling but it did not change what quoted triples are
16:41:30 [AndyS]
q+
16:41:36 [ora]
ack AndyS
16:41:45 [AZ]
tl: it took years to realise that this was a problem
16:41:55 [AZ]
AndyS: eventually, we need to have types
16:42:10 [niklasl]
q+
16:42:16 [ora]
ack niklasl
16:42:19 [tl]
q+
16:42:28 [AZ]
... if you have occurrences of the same thing, you at some point want to know what they refer to, which is the trype
16:42:32 [AZ]
s/trype/type/
16:42:47 [ora]
q+
16:43:08 [ora]
ack tl
16:43:40 [ktk]
present+
16:43:57 [AZ]
tl: we could use literals to refer to types
16:44:03 [AndyS]
q+
16:44:17 [niklasl]
Pat wrote: all we are ever needing to identify are graph tokens, not abstract graphs. You name a graph by identifying a token of it.
16:44:42 [ora]
ack AndyS
16:44:57 [AZ]
AndyS: a literal is self denoting
16:45:10 [niklasl]
+1 to Andy, they are all self-denoting
16:45:13 [ora]
ack ora
16:45:39 [niklasl]
"the meaning of meaning is its meaning"
16:45:44 [AZ]
ora: I'd like to know the way forward, considering these discussions
16:45:51 [AZ]
... we need to look at use cases
16:46:08 [AZ]
... are there UCs that require one of these proposals
16:46:26 [AZ]
... also what these proposals would look like in terms of abstract syntax
16:46:58 [AZ]
... how much things should be changed/extended
16:47:00 [pfps]
One problem with using use cases to push everytthing is that several views of quoted triples are equally expressive.
16:47:06 [AZ]
... especially for nested grapsh
16:47:14 [AZ]
s/grapsh/graphs/
16:47:29 [AZ]
... I propose as homework:
16:47:47 [niklasl]
My slides at 32 and 33 address "what do we do now" (and the use cases we've collected are covered). But there are questions in those two slides.
16:47:47 [AZ]
... find what use cases are supported by each proposal
16:48:25 [niklasl]
+100 for what are people currently doing with RDF
16:49:09 [niklasl]
q+
16:49:21 [ora]
ack niklasl
16:49:39 [AZ]
... and to understand the abstract syntax better to know what it implies for the work to be done
16:50:18 [AZ]
niklasl: with my proposal, the case of occurrences come for free
16:50:32 [AZ]
... I'm not sure it implies changes to the abstract syntax
16:50:40 [ora]
q+
16:51:14 [ora]
q-
16:51:16 [tl]
q+
16:51:17 [olaf]
q+
16:52:00 [ora]
ack tl
16:52:05 [AZ]
... I would need to know the implementation [not sure I got the point]
16:52:47 [ora]
ack olaf
16:52:53 [AZ]
tl: we may not need any change [to semantics] if nested graphs are just surface syntax
16:53:09 [AndyS]
q+
16:53:12 [AZ]
olaf: about what ora mentioned and gkellogg
16:53:21 [niklasl]
q+
16:53:42 [AZ]
... anything we propose can be defined in terms of the existing concepts or concepts that we build on top
16:53:48 [tl]
correctio tl: we may not need any change [to abstract syntax] if nested graphs are just surface syntax
16:54:04 [AZ]
... I disagree with tl about the nested graphs proposal requiring no change
16:54:18 [AZ]
... but that's my interpretation from the examples
16:54:38 [pchampin]
that's also my interpretation
16:54:54 [AZ]
... on the ML tl's proposal seemed to change the definition of an RDF graph
16:55:12 [AZ]
... to include nested graphs as terms
16:55:42 [ora]
ack AndyS
16:56:02 [AZ]
tl: at line 215 of my example file, there is something releveant
16:56:27 [ora]
ack niklasl
16:56:35 [AZ]
AndyS: I don't find the large examples particularly useful
16:56:55 [AZ]
niklasl: the syntax I propose reduces to Nquads
16:57:16 [AZ]
... I don't think my proposal requires additions to the syntax but maybe to the semantics
16:57:56 [AZ]
... I'm not strictly focused on blank graphs
16:58:46 [AZ]
ora: now we need to understand better the merrits of each of these proposals
16:59:47 [AZ]
... I'm giving a talk tomorrow about OneGraph
17:00:11 [AZ]
enrico: the agenda of the semantics TF is to attend ora's talk!
17:01:07 [niklasl]
Yes, thanks all!
17:01:20 [pchampin]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:01:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:03:12 [pchampin]
s|pfps's slides: https://www.w3.org/mid/5c79099d-d2d6-957f-804e-d04d1cc2af4a@gmail.com|
17:03:14 [pchampin]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:03:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:04:52 [pchampin]
s|[ tl's screenshared doc will be posted to the list, and will appear within https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Oct/ ]|tl's slides: https://www.w3.org/mid/696F5022-62FD-4A07-A070-1F77C62C4AB3@rat.io
17:04:55 [pchampin]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:04:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:06:09 [pchampin]
s|topic: Discussion|subtopic: Discussion
17:06:10 [pchampin]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:06:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:08:08 [pchampin]
previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/10/19-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:08:23 [pchampin]
next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/11/02-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:08:25 [pchampin]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:08:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:08:37 [pchampin]
zakim, end meeting
17:08:37 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been TallTed, pfps, ora, AZ, tl, fsasaki, enrico, draggett, pchampin, AndyS, olaf, niklasl, gkellogg, Souri, Dominik_T, gtw, doerthe, ktk
17:08:40 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:08:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim
17:08:46 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, pchampin; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
17:08:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-star
17:08:57 [pchampin]
zakim, bye
17:08:59 [pchampin]
RRSAgent, bye
17:08:59 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items