15:02:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:02:29 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/12-rdf-star-irc
15:02:56 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-star WG — Triple-Edge subgroup
15:04:24 <TallTed> whatever we put here will be captured in a log, if not proper minutes...
15:04:26 <TallTed> I cannot scribe, but if someone else can, that would be a win.
15:04:48 <AndyS> present+
15:05:07 <TallTed> present+
15:05:50 <tl> present+
15:05:51 <TallTed> present+ niklasl
15:05:52 <TallTed> present+ tl
15:05:52 <TallTed> present+ pchampin
15:05:52 <TallTed> present+ pfps
15:05:52 <TallTed> present+ gkellogg
15:06:21 <TallTed> present+ olaf
15:06:27 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:06:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/12-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:06:33 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:07:58 <gkellogg> present+
15:08:37 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
15:08:42 <niklasl> present+
15:08:44 <enrico> present+
15:09:04 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
15:09:24 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
15:09:37 <pchampin> topic: discussion about the terminology in order to reach a shared agreement
15:10:16 <olaf> niklasl: does anyone want to change the agenda?
15:10:30 <olaf> ... we need to iterate on the terminology
15:10:43 <olaf> pchampin: my suggestion is to go through the terminology
15:10:46 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:10:46 <Zakim> Present: AndyS, TallTed, tl, niklasl, pchampin, pfps, gkellogg, olaf, enrico
15:10:49 <Zakim> On IRC I see doerthe, pfps, enrico, RRSAgent, Zakim, olaf, gkellogg, tl, niklasl, TallTed, AndyS, csarven, gb, driib, Tpt, AnthonySpencer, ktk, Timothe, smoothsalt, joraboi445,
15:10:49 <Zakim> ... VladimirAlexiev, SintayewGashaw, pchampin, gtw, rhiaro, agendabot
15:11:06 <olaf> ... for things that turn out to be too controversial
15:11:23 <olaf> ... let's discuss them a bit, but not get stuck
15:11:31 <tl> q?
15:11:31 <gkellogg> q?
15:11:33 <TallTed> present+ doerthe
15:12:01 <olaf> gkellogg: which doc exactly are we working on?
15:12:18 <olaf> niklasl: I cannot edit the wiki
15:12:41 <olaf> ... or the docs in the repo. Therefore, I created a fork of the repo
15:13:11 <olaf> ... I try to share my screen with my editor
15:15:05 <olaf> ... looking at the terminology doc now
15:16:10 <olaf> AndyS: we need only/primarily the definitions in this doc, no need for extensive explanations or justifications
15:16:53 <olaf> niklasl: think we need to define "abstract triple" / "triple type"
15:16:57 <tl> q+
15:17:02 <olaf> q+
15:17:21 <olaf> gkellogg: isn't that defined in RDF Concept?
15:17:25 <pfps> From concepts: An RDF triple encodes a statement—a simple logical expression, or claim about the world
15:18:04 <olaf> niklasl: can I remove the section about "RDF Triple"?
15:18:05 <gkellogg> q?
15:18:08 <gkellogg> ack tl
15:18:08 <olaf> tl: no wait
15:18:33 <pfps> q+
15:18:33 <olaf> ... reader should understand the difference between triple and occurrence
15:18:43 <pchampin> q+
15:18:43 <enrico> q+
15:18:50 <tl> ack olaf
15:18:50 <olaf> ... also, I want to rename "occurrence" to "instance"
15:18:54 <gkellogg> scribe+
15:18:55 <pchampin> scribe+
15:18:57 <tl> q?
15:18:59 <pchampin> scribe-
15:19:13 <gkellogg> olaf: For me, the term RDF Triple is basically a Triple Type or Abstract Triple.
15:19:17 <tl> ack peter
15:19:26 <gkellogg> ack pfps
15:19:47 <pchampin> +1
15:19:49 <tl> ack pchampin
15:19:55 <olaf> pfps: we should not change the terminology of the RDF universe
15:20:03 <olaf> q-
15:20:25 <doerthe> +1 to pfps
15:20:28 <niklasl> q+
15:20:28 <olaf> pchampin: +1 to pfps
15:20:43 <olaf> ... regarding "instance" vs "occurrence"
15:20:44 <AndyS> +1 to pfps
15:20:45 <AndyS> q+
15:21:00 <olaf> ... let's keep that for a different entry in the terminology
15:21:02 <pchampin> ack enrico
15:21:19 <pfps> From RDF Semantics:  The subject of a reification is intended to denote a concrete realization of an RDF triple, such as a document in a surface syntax, rather than a triple considered as an abstract object. This supports use cases where properties such as dates of composition or provenance information are applied to the reified triple, which are meaningful only when thought of as denoting a particular instance or token of a triple.
15:21:49 <olaf> enrico: regarding "instance" vs "occurrence", that's a delicate topic
15:21:54 <pchampin> q?
15:21:58 <pchampin> ack niklasl
15:22:10 <olaf> ... we should first understand what they are and then pick a suitable name
15:22:43 <pchampin> q?
15:22:49 <olaf> niklasl: We still need a term for something that we say all the time now.
15:22:59 <olaf> ... perhaps "statement" ?
15:22:59 <pfps> My view is that "instance" is a poor word to use.  "occurence" or "token" are much better.
15:23:02 <pchampin> q+
15:23:13 <pchampin> ack AndyS
15:23:34 <olaf> AndyS: What is the audience for this material here?
15:24:19 <olaf> ... I thought the audience was the wider WG, and eventually the readers of the specs
15:24:39 <pchampin> ack pchampin
15:24:40 <tl> q+
15:24:51 <olaf> ... The wider WG may not have read all the ground material (mailing list threds etc)
15:24:56 <pfps> My view is that the audience for the current document is the working group.  This document may be the genesis of something for wider distribution, but any "missing" stuff for that audience can be added later.
15:25:23 <tl> +1 to peter
15:25:26 <olaf> pchampin: see what pfps wrote in the chat
15:25:47 <olaf> niklasl: yes the spec about RDF reification talks about tokens
15:26:05 <olaf> ... this was the gist that I was trying to capture when I wrote this down
15:26:36 <olaf> ... the spec singles out "realization", "token", ...
15:26:54 <olaf> ... I would like to clean up the definitions of these to make things clearer
15:27:12 <olaf> pchampin: I agree that ultimately these definitions may be material for the specs
15:28:00 <olaf> ... If we think the definitions we have from RDF 1.1 are not satisfactory, we can clarify them
15:28:10 <olaf> ... but we should reuse what we already have in the specs
15:28:52 <olaf> ... may for our internal material, we should also have a list of terms that we think are not so suitable
15:29:19 <pchampin> q?
15:29:22 <tl> q-
15:29:25 <olaf> ... including synonyms that are less good for the words that are better
15:29:31 <pchampin> ack tl
15:29:40 <olaf> niklasl: make a SKOS vocab for it? ;-)
15:29:47 <pchampin> q?
15:30:50 <olaf> pchampin: Regarding the term "RDF triple" let's quote the definition from RDF concepts
15:31:10 <olaf> ... because I don't think anyone wants to change that definition / the use of that term
15:32:07 <olaf> niklasl: How to mention the "less good" synonyms?
15:32:32 <pchampin> q?
15:32:39 <tl> q+
15:33:09 <olaf> tl: no objection on "RDF triple"
15:33:32 <olaf> ... we should move to the difficult ones, in particular "occurrence"
15:33:51 <olaf> pchampin: next one is "RDF statement"
15:34:36 <AndyS> "An RDF statement is the statement made by a token of an RDF triple." : https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_statement
15:35:14 <olaf> niklasl: My thought when adding "RDF statement" was that this term shows up in spec text related to reification
15:35:43 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#resources-and-statements
15:35:47 <pchampin> q?
15:36:02 <pchampin> ack tl
15:36:03 <olaf> gkellogg: The NQuads grammar uses "statement"
15:36:33 <AndyS> q+
15:36:46 <pchampin> and quad is not the appropriate term either, because it does not always have 4 components :->
15:36:46 <olaf> ... "triple" is not the appropriate term there because it is not about triples but quads
15:37:14 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-n-quads/#simple-triples
15:37:26 <olaf> ... but it would mirror the grammar rule of "triple" in a single-graph serialization format
15:37:41 <pchampin> q?
15:37:47 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-n-quads/#grammar-production-statement
15:38:27 <pchampin> ack AndyS
15:39:02 <olaf> ... we could say that this word "statement" has a meaning different from the notion of "statement" as defined in RF Concepts
15:39:22 <olaf> AndyS: "statement" is mentioned in RDF Concepts and in RDF Schema
15:39:49 <olaf> niklasl: looking at RDF concepts now
15:40:10 <pchampin> q?
15:40:58 <olaf> ... I will use that definition of "RDF statement" from RDF Concepts
15:41:45 <tl> q+
15:42:05 <TallTed> a quad always has 4 elements. sometimes the 4th is implicit.
15:42:58 <olaf> pchampin: The links in that doc should point to the current 1.2 drafts
15:43:16 <olaf> ... because these are supposed to capture the current consensus of the WG
15:43:26 <pchampin> TallTed: meh... when the 4th element is "default graph", it is not a term...
15:43:44 <pchampin> ack tl
15:44:11 <olaf> tl: this is editorial work, we don't need to do that with 10 ppl
15:44:30 <olaf> ... let's move on to discuss "triple occurrence"!
15:45:34 <tl> q+
15:46:02 <olaf> pchampin: was "triple instance" and "triple occurrence" meant to be different?
15:46:17 <olaf> niklasl: no, they are there because both where used
15:46:36 <pchampin> q?
15:46:43 <olaf> gkellog: Andy's definition is great and we should put it in there
15:47:01 <olaf> pchampin: put it into RDF concepts?
15:47:26 <olaf> gkellogg: for the moment, I would like to simply capture it because it is useful to refer to it
15:47:47 <tl> q-
15:50:00 <pfps> q+
15:50:09 <olaf> pchampin: please add some text to say that we may want to include these definitions in the spec
15:50:11 <niklasl> q+
15:50:13 <pchampin> ack pfps
15:50:31 <olaf> pfps: if there is no observable difference, we need only one term
15:50:33 <AndyS> q?
15:50:35 <pchampin> q?
15:50:38 <pchampin> ack niklasl
15:50:48 <olaf> pchampin: does anyone see a difference?
15:51:02 <olaf> niklasl: I wanted to capture the assertion of a triple
15:51:27 <pchampin> q?
15:51:29 <olaf> tl: I do see a difference
15:51:51 <olaf> ... we need a name for the triple in the graph
15:52:03 <pchampin> q+
15:52:13 <olaf> ... which is only once
15:52:20 <olaf> --- because of set semantics
15:52:37 <gkellogg> q+ to suggest that an RDF Statement which is in the set of triples associated with an RDF Graph is considered to be asserted.
15:53:23 <olaf> pchampin: for me the assertion is in the syntactic realm, the statement is in the semantic realm
15:53:33 <niklasl> q+
15:53:39 <pchampin> ack lc
15:53:43 <pchampin> ack pchampin
15:53:48 <pchampin> ack gkellogg
15:53:48 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to suggest that an RDF Statement which is in the set of triples associated with an RDF Graph is considered to be asserted.
15:54:02 <olaf> gkellogg: that's why graph is an important concept
15:54:07 <olaf> ... it is a set of triples
15:54:25 <olaf> ... a triple / statement in itself is a concept without ground
15:54:41 <olaf> ... it becomes asserted when it is put into a graph
15:54:41 <pchampin> q?
15:54:55 <olaf> AndyS: yes, that's the problem
15:55:00 <olaf> ... aserting is an action
15:55:06 <olaf> s/aserting/asserting
15:55:12 <TallTed> a triple is asserted (i.e., becomes an assertion) when ...
15:55:20 <pchampin> q?
15:55:39 <olaf> AndyS: a graph is immutable
15:55:53 <pchampin> ack niklasl
15:55:59 <olaf> gkellogg: Then, better if it is a consituant of a graph
15:56:01 <doerthe> at some point we talked about triple terms vs. asserted triples (longer ago)
15:56:44 <olaf> s/consituant/constituant
15:57:53 <pchampin> q+
15:58:21 <pchampin> ack pchampin
15:58:22 <olaf> pchampin: I suggest to replace "constituent" by "element"
15:58:32 <olaf> gkellogg: yes
15:59:33 <olaf> pchampin: This term (asserted triple) has a meaning only in the context of a graph
16:00:24 <pchampin> q?
16:01:35 <niklasl> q+
16:01:53 <pchampin> ack niklasl
16:02:02 <olaf> olaf: is an "asserted triple" a type or token?
16:02:27 <AndyS> q+
16:02:36 <olaf> niklasl: I will attempt to answer your version of this question in the mailinglist
16:02:45 <tl> q+
16:03:16 <olaf> ... but I don't think the answer to this question can be added into the terminology
16:03:26 <pchampin> my take to olaf's question: "asserted" is a "contextual" property of a triple (relative to a graph); an asserted triple is therefore whatever a triple is
16:03:37 <pchampin> q?
16:03:40 <pchampin> ack AndyS
16:04:03 <pchampin> ack tl
16:04:08 <olaf> AndyS: just to say "RDF type" already exists - it is an informal term of RDF class
16:04:19 <olaf> tl: I think "token" doesn't apply
16:04:30 <pchampin> q?
16:04:46 <niklasl> q+
16:04:54 <olaf> ... the distinction between different assertion events is crucial
16:05:14 <pchampin> ack niklasl
16:05:50 <olaf> niklasl: "asserted triple" as defined here is for _a_ graph
16:06:05 <olaf> AndyS: but you missed the "w.r.t. a graph" part
16:06:37 <tl> q+
16:06:45 <pchampin> ack tl
16:07:13 <olaf> tl: can we have "RDF Triple Occurrence / Instance" to indicate that we are not sure about the name
16:09:00 <tl> q+
16:10:03 <olaf> gkellogg: "occurrence" for me means to be an element of a graph
16:10:09 <olaf> AndyS: spot on!
16:10:18 <pchampin> q?
16:10:23 <tl> q-
16:10:24 <olaf> ... "instance" has the same problem
16:10:32 <pchampin> q+
16:11:06 <olaf> niklasl: We have "asserted triple" and "RDF statement"
16:11:53 <tl> q+
16:12:10 <AndyS> q+ to suggest "potential occurrence" or "possible occurrence")
16:12:26 <pchampin> ack pchampin
16:12:43 <olaf> ... niklas: "occurrence" is ambigous
16:13:09 <olaf> pchampin: "occurrence" serves a purpose similar to what original reification was about
16:13:18 <olaf> niklasl: I like that
16:13:23 <pchampin> ack tl
16:13:54 <olaf> tl: the definition of reification is pretty clear but the practical use is different
16:13:57 <niklasl> q+
16:14:44 <pchampin> q+
16:15:11 <olaf> ... So, if we use new terms now (claims and facts), it would be more correct but it would make it unusable for people coming to RDF
16:15:15 <gkellogg> q+ to note RDF Schema description of rdf:Statement
16:15:22 <olaf> ... I don't kow what to do
16:15:35 <pchampin> ack AndyS
16:15:35 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to suggest "potential occurrence" or "possible occurrence")
16:15:51 <olaf> ... perhaps cover all the meanings by the annotation syntax
16:16:00 <pchampin> I like "possible use"
16:16:20 <olaf> AndyS: reification names something in the domain of discourse
16:17:28 <pchampin> ack gkellogg
16:17:28 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to note RDF Schema description of rdf:Statement
16:17:39 <olaf> gkellogg: about the specific statement in RDF Schema
16:18:18 <gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-schema/#ch_statement
16:20:39 <AndyS> "The reification only says that the triple token exists and what it is about, not that it is true, so it does not entail the triple."
16:21:29 <TallTed> q+
16:22:01 <tl> q+
16:22:24 <pchampin> q-
16:22:43 <AndyS> q+
16:22:44 <pchampin> ack niklasl
16:23:09 <pchampin> ack TallTed
16:24:29 <pchampin> q+ niklasl
16:24:43 <olaf> TallTed: What we were just looking at in the Schema spec lends itself to be something for the new syntax we developed
16:24:47 <pchampin> ack tl
16:25:49 <olaf> tl: It is clear to me. Yet, the language of "tokens" in that spec text makes it clear to me that the triple is asserted
16:26:13 <olaf> TallTed: No, it is explicitly there!
16:26:20 <pchampin> ack AndyS
16:27:23 <niklasl> +1 to Ted, in that I am more and more certain that RDF-star triple term syntax should *at least* be for RDF reification (but I wonder if we *may* do more to make it "better" (in some way))
16:27:36 <pchampin> Zakim, close queue
16:27:36 <Zakim> ok, pchampin, the speaker queue is closed
16:27:44 <pchampin> ack niklasl
16:27:59 <olaf> niklasl: what I wanted to say is what you also said regarding that ...
16:28:06 <pchampin> to tl, a token / materialization of a triple does not have to be "in a graph"
16:28:13 <olaf> ... I wanted to emphasize this supports part of the definition
16:29:41 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-semantics/#Reif
16:30:04 <AndyS> ack me
16:33:06 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:33:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/12-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:33:42 <TallTed> chair: pchampin
16:33:50 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:33:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/12-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:34:03 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
16:46:28 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:47:55 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:52:06 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:37:49 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:36:13 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:57:47 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:52:16 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star