17:04:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
17:04:18 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/11/16-rdf-star-irc
17:04:27 <Enrico> Enrico has joined #rdf-star
17:04:30 <TallTed> present+
17:04:32 <Souri_> Souri_ has joined #rdf-star
17:04:33 <Tpt> present+
17:04:35 <AndyS> present+
17:04:36 <niklasl> present+
17:04:37 <gkellogg> present+
17:04:37 <ora> present+
17:04:41 <ora> chair+
17:04:42 <doerthe> present+
17:04:46 <Enrico> present+
17:04:47 <Dominik_T> present+
17:04:50 <AZ> present+
17:04:56 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-star WG biweekly meeting
17:05:00 <gtw> present+
17:05:02 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/d45f4f0d-141c-440d-8fec-ef5842345ca2/20231102T120000/
17:05:02 <agendabot> clear agenda
17:05:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Approval of minutes from the last two weeks: [1]
17:05:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Proposal for next week's discussion
17:05:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Review of open actions, available at [2]
17:05:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Review of pull requests, available at [3]
17:05:05 <agendabot> agenda+ Issue Triage, available at [4]
17:05:08 <agendabot> agenda+ Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
17:05:08 <Souri_> present+
17:05:22 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0a6aa6e3-635c-42c2-baba-938c76b6ef01/20231116T120000/
17:05:22 <agendabot> TallTed, sorry, I did not recognize any agenda in https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0a6aa6e3-635c-42c2-baba-938c76b6ef01/20231116T120000/
17:05:22 <Souri_> only on irc
17:05:31 <AndyS> regrets: olaf
17:05:34 <TallTed> Zakim, clear agenda
17:05:34 <Zakim> agenda cleared
17:06:02 <ora> regrets: ktk
17:06:11 <AndyS> regrets: ktk
17:08:20 <AZ> As Gregg, I remembered that this would be a 1 hour meeting, but not an hour spent on administrative stuff
17:09:46 <AZ> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/scribes.md
17:10:05 <AZ> There is a link to it from the Github wiki
17:11:11 <AZ> Actually, the scribe list was not updated since May 2023
17:12:16 <AndyS> scribe: AndyS
17:12:23 <Tpt> scribe: Tpt
17:12:52 <AndyS> ora: Intro
17:13:50 <AndyS> ... Questions and Observations slide
17:14:36 <AndyS> .. not required to "rubber stamp" the CG work
17:15:07 <AndyS> ora: set of decisions to make - not independent
17:15:28 <AndyS> ... challenge is to come up with the consistent set of choices
17:15:53 <AndyS> ... how much do we extend RDF semantics
17:16:08 <AndyS> ora: timescale
17:16:34 <AndyS> ... now, and for work after this WG
17:17:56 <ora> q?
17:18:04 <pchampin> present+
17:18:22 <gkellogg> q+
17:18:25 <fsasaki> q+
17:18:59 <ora> It was always clear that we were not going to “rubber-stamp” the work of the CG, because we have a different group of participants now
17:19:46 <AndyS> gkellogg: Need to get abstract syntax right.
17:19:47 <ora> We have a set of decisions to make, many of which depend on one another (and are informed/influenced by use cases). Can we make a consistent selection of solutions/answers to these questions?
17:20:06 <ora> Can we finish our work in a finite amount of time? Can we reach consensus for an approach where we limit ourselves to some (“simple”) solution now, but make it possible for us (or others) to continue the work after this WG is done?
17:20:26 <tl> q+
17:20:53 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:21:00 <AndyS> ... either reification or graphs
17:21:20 <niklasl> q+
17:21:24 <AndyS> ... concrete syntax can be different ways
17:21:42 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
17:21:49 <AndyS> ... somewhat different work to be done
17:22:41 <ora> ack fsasaki
17:22:45 <AndyS> ... "do the least harm" - start with changes to RDF concepts
17:23:16 <AndyS> fsasaki: charter scope is implement quoted triples
17:23:31 <Enrico> Enrico has joined #rdf-star
17:23:36 <AndyS> ... what is the implication of this on process?
17:23:44 <Enrico> Present+
17:24:17 <AndyS> pchampin: all work falls under the charter
17:24:31 <AndyS> ... the CG work is input not final
17:24:50 <AndyS> ... graph terms is unclear as to whether in/out
17:25:18 <AndyS> ... triple terms may imply grapohs by some reading
17:25:52 <ora> ack tl
17:25:52 <AndyS> ... we would need to inform the members we are interpreting the charter in a particular way
17:25:59 <Souri_> s/grapohs/graphs/
17:26:42 <AndyS> ThomasL: Reification and statement id is quite different
17:26:59 <AndyS> ... makes it a big difference
17:27:07 <ora> ack niklasl
17:27:58 <AndyS> niklasl: my approach is conservative conceptually with liberal concrete syntax
17:28:11 <ora> q+
17:28:16 <AndyS> ... want simple as possible that does not upset the wider communities
17:28:37 <AndyS> ... inc those using RDF-star already
17:29:18 <AndyS> ... charter has "quoted" which I think implies opacity
17:30:45 <AndyS> ... in named graphs, there is no way to control the union default graph
17:31:30 <ora> ack ora
17:31:48 <AndyS> ora: nebulous community
17:32:43 <AndyS> ... in original spec work, reification was introduced very early in the text
17:33:04 <niklasl> q+
17:33:19 <gkellogg> q+ to note how similar reification is to collections, which are also unpopular
17:33:21 <AndyS> ... there is probably a community that relies on reification
17:34:07 <AndyS> ... why was it called "quoted"? lisp analogy - no interpretation.
17:34:30 <tl> q+
17:34:34 <AndyS> ... so my interpretation is that it implies "not asserted"
17:34:50 <ora> ack niklasl
17:35:31 <AndyS> niklasl: something about tokens - describes a triple, not asserts it
17:35:55 <AndyS> ... named graphs have this capacity to quote
17:36:22 <AndyS> ... multiple interpretations
17:36:50 <AndyS> ... power in named graphs
17:38:41 <AndyS> ... problem is that want to use RDF 1.1 implementations
17:39:36 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:39:36 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to note how similar reification is to collections, which are also unpopular
17:39:43 <AndyS> ora: different interpretations by different communities
17:40:32 <AndyS> gkellogg: there is a problem with changing URI named graphs - more usage
17:41:02 <AndyS> ... blank node can only refer to the graph
17:41:26 <AndyS> gkellogg: c.f. RDF collections (lists) -- unpopular
17:42:06 <AndyS> ... similar dilemma to if we wanted list as first class concepts
17:42:11 <ora> q+
17:42:25 <AndyS> ... similar to quote triples as reifications
17:42:38 <AndyS> s/quote/quoted/
17:43:13 <AndyS> ora: lists were from closed collections in OWL.
17:43:30 <ora> ack tl
17:43:38 <ora> q-
17:43:54 <AndyS> tl: lists got syntactic sugar.
17:44:45 <AndyS> ... quotation - embedded triples were asserted and this changed in the CG to support unasserted statements
17:44:50 <niklasl> q+
17:45:25 <AndyS> ... requirement - unasserted triples is orthogonal to annotated statements
17:45:35 <AndyS> ... graph literals cover this
17:46:10 <AndyS> ... can use concrete syntax for different use cases
17:46:59 <AndyS> s/ThomasL:/tl:/
17:47:14 <ora> ack niklasl
17:48:09 <AndyS> niklasl: my POV is that unasserted statements and annotated statements are close together
17:49:21 <ora> q+
17:49:33 <AndyS> ... trusted and untrusted graphs
17:50:05 <AndyS> q?
17:50:18 <AndyS> tl: graph literals - queryable
17:50:48 <AndyS> ... need a marker to distinguish the two cases
17:51:02 <ora> ack ora
17:51:16 <AndyS> ora: interesting discussion
17:51:53 <AndyS> ... Q for today - is it possible to work on proposal 2 (CG work??)
17:52:10 <AndyS> ... which that the work on graphs can build on that
17:52:16 <AndyS> q+
17:52:17 <niklasl> q+
17:52:26 <Enrico> Enrico has joined #rdf-star
17:52:36 <AndyS> .. I think that is the way to go
17:52:44 <ora> ack AndyS
17:52:44 <Enrico> present+
17:52:55 <gkellogg> scribe+
17:52:56 <doerthe> Can someone remind us, what option 2 was? :)
17:53:24 <gkellogg> AndyS: There are two technical fundamental issues from option 2: we're much clearer on types vs tokens.
17:53:36 <gkellogg> ... Any option will have to have both working within them.
17:54:04 <ora> q+
17:54:08 <gkellogg> ... It was always in the background that we might want to talk about graphs, and it's now become the "genie you can't put back in the bottle".
17:54:42 <gkellogg> ... But, I don't think moving from quoted triples to quoted graphs is really that big a step; I don't see how it really changes the problem.
17:54:55 <pchampin> q+
17:55:02 <ora> ack niklasl
17:55:04 <gkellogg> scribe=
17:55:07 <gkellogg> scribe-
17:55:30 <AndyS> niklasl: I think that "option 2" distracts from the right thing to do.
17:55:52 <AndyS> ... quoted triples as types are a problem - can be misused
17:56:27 <ora> q-
17:57:04 <AndyS> q+
17:57:34 <AndyS> niklasl: name the graph vs name the occurrence
17:57:47 <ora> ack pchampin
17:57:50 <AndyS> ... option 2 will not help the important cases
17:58:27 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
17:58:45 <AndyS> pchampin: quoted graphs are more complicated because need to look inside graphs to answer questions
17:59:32 <tl> q+
17:59:40 <Souri> present+
18:00:05 <AndyS> ... to niklasl on numbers - seem to be counter to the fact numbers occur once in a graph
18:00:06 <niklasl> q+
18:00:55 <AndyS> ... types can be useful
18:01:00 <ora> ack AndyS
18:01:24 <Tpt> AndyS: when we talk talk about option 2, what are we refering to
18:01:35 <Tpt> ora: I was referring to gregg's email
18:01:41 <pchampin> gregg's email: https://www.w3.org/mid/30203E2A-6941-44D2-92A1-9A9FD9E40C27@greggkellogg.net
18:02:43 <Tpt> AndyS: I am afraid you lost me about type. I did not quite followed. If you say we write the same pointy bracket syntax in different places of the graph and it means different terms, we have changed RDF fondamentally
18:03:01 <ora> ack tl
18:03:19 <AndyS> tl: idea - literal as the type
18:03:23 <doerthe> q+
18:04:26 <AndyS> ... the problems Peter described and pchampin mentioned, subgraph containment.
18:05:26 <ora> ack niklasl
18:05:57 <AndyS> q+
18:06:28 <ora> scribe: Tpt
18:06:33 <ora> q?
18:06:48 <Tpt> niklasl: I am not sure you understood me. I used 5 as an example because the use of it in a piece of paper is an occurence of 5
18:07:18 <Tpt> niklasl: If we say X is born in 1902 and somebody else too, those 2 occurences are what I am talking about
18:07:31 <AndyS> q+
18:07:35 <Tpt> niklasl: I don't think we should go all that way to graph terms, it's out of the charter
18:07:55 <Tpt> niklasl: Named graphs being pairs of any term and a graph is very fine and the way it should be
18:09:25 <Tpt> niklasl: what the gaph is is application specific, it can be a file or just the graph itself
18:09:50 <Tpt> niklasl: I like RDF-star triples for annotations (what is the source...)
18:10:01 <ora> s/gaph/graph
18:10:11 <ora> ack doerthe
18:10:38 <Tpt> doerthe: niklasl: do you affirm we don't need graph terms at all?
18:11:22 <Tpt> doerthe: We can do quoted triples with literals, but we still want to query that, have a mechanism to query that.
18:11:31 <niklasl> q+
18:11:50 <Tpt> doerthe: I don't think the logical consequence of the graph is a logician problem, in SPARQL we implement entailment and it affects results
18:12:00 <ora> ack AndyS
18:12:55 <Tpt> AndyS: I want to make an example. There are two occurences, they are triples about the same subject. You need to have a look inside of them.
18:13:29 <ora> ack niklasl
18:13:39 <Tpt> AndyS: To niklasl, other than your concern of working with RDF 1.1, would having query statement like "the node having an occurence of X" works for you?
18:13:50 <tl> q+
18:15:09 <AndyS> niklasl: "yes" to rdf:occurenceOf example
18:15:19 <pchampin> q+
18:16:30 <ora> ack tl
18:16:30 <Tpt> niklasl: I have no need for graph/triple term type, I would like to have more use cases. The proposal I made covers all the use cases I have seen
18:17:00 <AndyS> q+
18:17:01 <Tpt> tl: The problem with type is that it's early optimization.
18:17:08 <niklasl> q+
18:17:24 <Tpt> tl: As soon as you have two facts "bob said X on monday", you need an identifier
18:18:17 <ora> ack pchampin
18:18:25 <Tpt> tl: as soon as you get into metamodeling it creates problem
18:19:15 <Tpt> pchampin: reaction to tl: in the CG the choice to make quoted triples type is not an optimization but as you pointed out forcing that all triples have an identifier is standard reification
18:19:32 <Tpt> pchampin: if RDF-star has been so popular is because of its simplicity
18:19:43 <Tpt> pchampin: but we are not bounded by the CG
18:20:47 <tl> q+
18:21:00 <Tpt> pchampin: to niklasl you consider term in subject and object position to work differently. I have an issue with that. I don't avocate to change that. But the semantic does not care about this distrinction. Am I wrong that you make this strong distinction?
18:21:15 <ora> ack niklasl
18:22:15 <Tpt> niklasl: Yes and no, I uses inverse all the time, there is no real difference between subject and object. Literals are fine to have them as subject but it's quite easy to missuse as subject. You would end up with JSON in RDF
18:23:18 <Tpt> niklasl: One of my problem with triple terms is that they change the semantics. I have to see if the value of adding them outweights the complexity
18:23:35 <Tpt> niklasl: The usecase is the measurement I have used to know this more confidently
18:23:52 <Tpt> niklasl: It's easy to do wrong when we have them
18:24:01 <ora> ack AndyS
18:24:46 <Tpt> AndyS: I thought we were going to do something difference. I want to hear about the proposal and what they are going to change.
18:25:30 <Tpt> AndyS: We need to get a little bit more working on what the core principals are and spend time discussing how we move forward. I don't feel we have moved forward in any way
18:26:01 <Tpt> ora: Rather than saying what is the proposal you support we might answer instead to what are we willing to live with
18:26:17 <niklasl> q+
18:26:20 <Tpt> ora: I am not entierly sure how to make progress
18:26:50 <tl> q-
18:27:06 <Tpt> ora: do we need to be more clear about what the possible way forward are?
18:27:39 <doerthe> I will also have to leave
18:27:45 <Tpt> ora: Do we need to check at compatibility to see what people can live with
18:27:45 <doerthe> Bye
18:28:05 <ora> ack niklasl
18:28:12 <gkellogg> q+
18:28:16 <Tpt> niklasl: We were talking about proposal 2 and I wanted to know how many people can live without triple terms
18:28:17 <tl> q+
18:28:35 <pchampin> q+ to suggest to rephrase "can live without triple terms" into "cal live without extending the abstract syntax"
18:28:35 <pfps> q+
18:28:50 <ora> ack gkellogg
18:29:10 <Tpt> gkellogg: The minimum we can do is to do nothing, we do not harm
18:29:46 <Tpt> gkellogg: But we push the problem into the realm of syntax. I believe it's what peter was higlighting. We leverage the concepts we have and we do thing at the syntax level
18:30:02 <Tpt> gkellogg: For example, it works with list even if they are a pain to query
18:30:21 <ora> ack tl
18:30:29 <Tpt> gkellogg: I don't think we need to go that if we bridge the gap about what a graph name means in subject and object
18:30:33 <pfps> q-
18:31:54 <Tpt> tl: Our problem is very complicated: metamodeling in RDF. RDF-star puts a lot of strings on users.
18:32:30 <ora> ack pchampin
18:32:30 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to suggest to rephrase "can live without triple terms" into "cal live without extending the abstract syntax"
18:32:35 <Tpt> tl: I made a proposal that changes a very few things but I think it brings a lot. I would appreciate feedback and comments
18:32:43 <niklasl> q+
18:33:24 <Tpt> pchampin: I was wondering if the spirit is more about living without triple terms in the abstract syntax rather leaving it untouched. Then there are the option of having graph and triple terms
18:33:37 <ora> ack niklasl
18:33:47 <AndyS> q+
18:34:37 <Tpt> niklasl: That's a good point. I don't think triple terms are possible without type. It's why I am suggesting annotation only.
18:35:42 <ora> ack AndyS
18:36:12 <Tpt> AndyS: I cannot square we are not changing the abstract syntax if we are introducing occurences as a first class object
18:36:24 <niklasl> q+
18:36:24 <TallTed> q+
18:36:55 <Tpt> AndyS: It opens a question about replacement of blank node by uris
18:37:13 <ora> ack niklasl
18:37:49 <pchampin> q+
18:37:59 <Tpt> niklasl: every example I use serialize as nquads and the denotation is the same
18:38:11 <pchampin> q-
18:38:18 <Tpt> AndyS: In this case, what about you write a document that describes how to do annotations in RDF 1.1
18:39:13 <ora> ack TallTed
18:39:16 <niklasl> q+
18:40:05 <Tpt> TallTed: niklasl: in terms of teaching RDF, you are teaching language, grammar. When teaching RDF concepts it does not matter that subject is restricted to not a literal, it's refinement
18:40:32 <Tpt> TallTed: RDF is at base a system of describing anything in statements of triples
18:41:03 <Tpt> TallTed: When the 4th column was added it was named "context" and not given a definition
18:41:12 <tl> q+
18:41:17 <Tpt> TallTed: because people had different ideas of how to names them
18:41:42 <Tpt> TallTed: lots of people are using it as other than a named graph even if it's the most common usage
18:42:13 <Tpt> TallTed: Using it as named graph with a firm definition, we are going ahead of ourselves
18:42:36 <gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-dataset
18:42:50 <gkellogg> An RDF dataset is a collection of RDF graphs, and comprises:
18:42:50 <gkellogg> Exactly one default graph, being an RDF graph. The default graph does not have a name and may be empty.
18:42:50 <gkellogg> Zero or more named graphs. Each named graph is a pair consisting of an IRI or a blank node (the graph name), and an RDF graph. Graph names are unique within an RDF dataset.
18:42:53 <Tpt> TallTed: our challenge is to make our changes as small as possible while still archiving what we need
18:43:29 <Tpt> TallTed: Something that does not exactly exists. Quad are not necessary, they are a sugar that disrupt the purity of the triples
18:44:04 <Tpt> TallTed: Getting all of this stuff to work right requires to satisfy not only the new use cases but the old one
18:44:05 <pchampin> gkellogg, I think what TallTed is saying is that people are putting more "meaning" in the term "named graph" than what the spec says
18:44:15 <Tpt> TallTed: and apply on the existing systems
18:44:38 <Tpt> TallTed: I am afraid of the logical purity will distrupt people who use RDF today
18:45:18 <Tpt> TallTed: We have competing goals. There was a people that people liked that was about briding RDF and property graph
18:45:20 <gkellogg> pchampin, yes, I agree. My thought in 1.2 is that we should be able to talk about named graphs, or rather the graphs which are named by that pair.
18:45:30 <ora> q+
18:45:34 <Tpt> TallTed: It turned out what we wanted is something to annotate and quote
18:46:02 <Tpt> TallTed: The annotation is talking about something asserted and quoting is about something not asserted
18:47:02 <Tpt> TallTed: Describing bridges between RDF and property graph is more important than solving them
18:47:39 <Tpt> TallTed: We can't make veryone happy but we can deliver an improvement
18:47:54 <Tpt> TallTed: RDF built on reification is hugly and nobody things that way
18:48:11 <ora> ack niklasl
18:48:28 <pchampin> +1 to making most people mostly happy; hence the importance of "can you live with it?" questions
18:49:10 <AndyS> q+
18:49:12 <Tpt> niklasl: I agree with that. Reification is explicitely talking about the token. The thing I propose uses only what is in RDF
18:49:37 <TallTed> s/built on reification is hugly and nobody things/built-in reification is ugly and nobody thinks/
18:50:22 <ora> ack AndyS
18:50:45 <Tpt> AndyS: I heard TallTed say to respect what is already out there and using named graph in a specific way is not respecting what is out there
18:51:09 <pchampin> niklasl you are implying a specific relation between the graph and its name
18:51:15 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:51:50 <Tpt> AndyS: Currently we have a pair (graph, graph name) that has no defined relation between them
18:52:08 <ora> q-
18:52:17 <ora> ack tl
18:52:37 <ora> q+
18:54:16 <Tpt> AndyS: I have asked on all proposal how they work on the abstract syntax level. I have not had answers.
18:54:16 <Tpt> tl: I have made a lot of work in my semantic proposal such that it does not interract to much with existing named graphs
18:55:06 <Tpt> tl: ...usages. You can nest named graph in some totally application specific named graphs
18:55:54 <ora> ack ora
18:56:18 <Tpt> ora: I would need a lot of thinking on who to move forward
18:56:34 <Tpt> ora: to tl I need to understand about how his proposal interacts with SPARQL
18:56:54 <Tpt> ora: I agree with TallTed, the situation is exactly as you describe
18:57:17 <Tpt> ora: We need to answer what are the question we are trying to answer and find a consistent set of answers
18:57:43 <Tpt> ora: And leave things such that things that people argue are outside the charter can still be possible
18:57:50 <Tpt> ora: such that we don't close doors
18:58:19 <Tpt> ora: I urge people to think about the things they can and they can not live with
18:58:41 <pchampin> +1 to that :)
18:58:48 <Tpt> ora: I think it would be worthwile for everyone to think about what TallTed said
18:59:08 <Tpt> ora: I propose we are adjourned.
18:59:25 <Tpt> ora: we decided no meeting next week because of Thanksgiving
18:59:40 <Tpt> pchampin: next meeting will be a short meeting
18:59:50 <Tpt> ora: ...in two weeks
19:00:09 <Tpt> ora: I urge people to continue talking on the mailing list
19:00:30 <Tpt> ora: Happy thanksgiving, I feel very grateful for this group
19:00:58 <Tpt> rrsagent, draft minutes
19:01:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/16-rdf-star-minutes.html Tpt
19:01:30 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:02:39 <Tpt> RRSAgent, make public
19:02:39 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make public', Tpt.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
19:03:35 <TallTed> s/archiving what we need/achieving what we need/
19:04:05 <TallTed> s/requires to satisfy/requires that we satisfy/
19:04:32 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes public
19:04:32 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', pchampin.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
19:04:47 <TallTed> s/people that people liked that was about briding RDF/paper that people liked that was about bridging RDF/
19:05:12 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make logs public
19:05:14 <TallTed> s/more important than solving them/more important than building them/
19:06:09 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
19:06:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/16-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
19:06:56 <TallTed> i/ora: Intro/scribe: andys/
19:07:00 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
19:07:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/16-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
19:09:20 <pchampin> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/11/02-rdf-star-minutes.html
19:09:32 <pchampin> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/11/30-rdf-star-minutes.html
19:09:37 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
19:09:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/16-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
19:40:39 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:04:42 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:19:44 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:38:58 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:11:49 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:14:13 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:42:52 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:18:22 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:13:16 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:31:00 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:53:27 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
<pchampin> present+ eBremer