15:59:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:59:27 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/10/03-rdf-star-irc
15:59:27 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:59:28 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
15:59:37 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star WG focused meeting
15:59:40 <pchampin> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e7387703-d1cb-4215-a7e1-eec9b4af24d4/20241003T120000/#agenda
15:59:40 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:59:40 <agendabot> agenda+ Addressing SPARQL EXISTS errata & vote -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/156
15:59:40 <agendabot> agenda+ Map the annotation syntax to rdfs:states -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128
15:59:40 <agendabot> agenda+ Vocabulary to refer to the individual nodes in a triple term -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130
15:59:41 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/156 -> Issue 156 Addressing SPARQL EXISTS errata (by afs) [discuss-f2f] [needs discussion]
15:59:41 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 -> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [discuss-f2f]
15:59:41 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130 -> Issue 130 vocabulary to refer to the individual nodes in a triple term (by rat10) [discuss-f2f]
15:59:42 <agendabot> agenda+ Define an interpretation of Triple Terms -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49
15:59:42 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 -> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [discuss-f2f] [needs discussion]
15:59:45 <agendabot> agenda+ Additional "needs discussion" issues -> 5 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/6
15:59:48 <agendabot> agenda+ Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
15:59:55 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
15:59:56 <pchampin> gb, ignore agendabot
15:59:59 <gb> pchampin, OK
16:00:04 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
16:00:06 <gtw> present+
16:00:08 <gkellogg> present+
16:00:16 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:00:25 <pchampin> pchampin has changed the topic to: RDF-star WG — https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e7387703-d1cb-4215-a7e1-eec9b4af24d4/20241003T120000/
16:00:31 <pchampin> present+
16:00:33 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
16:01:01 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF-star WG biweekly focused meeting 2024-10-03 — https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e7387703-d1cb-4215-a7e1-eec9b4af24d4/20241003T120000/
16:01:02 <pchampin> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:01:03 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:01:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/03-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:01:12 <fsasaki> present+
16:01:12 <TallTed> present+
16:01:12 <ora> present+
16:01:12 <ora> chair+
16:01:16 <AndyS> present+
16:01:49 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:01:53 <ktk> present+
16:02:02 <tl> present+
16:03:21 <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
16:03:23 <Tpt> present+
16:03:30 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:03:33 <niklasl> present+
16:04:06 <fsasaki> ora: reminder, we apply our new way of working, using the issues list as a back log and bring issues up for our discussion
16:04:21 <fsasaki> ... during the admin meeting we do a reprio of the issues as needed
16:04:44 <fsasaki> ktk: we continue the f2f backlog for now
16:04:45 <AZ> present+
16:04:57 <fsasaki> topic: sparql exists
16:04:58 <olaf> present+
16:05:11 <pchampin> zakim, open item 1
16:05:11 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Addressing SPARQL EXISTS errata & vote -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/156 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:05:11 <fsasaki> ora: see email from James anderson on the topic
16:05:20 <william_vw> william_vw has joined #rdf-star
16:05:30 <fsasaki> ora: james, can you summarize your concerns?
16:05:32 <william_vw> present+
16:05:56 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
16:06:00 <eBremer> present+
16:06:14 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
16:06:34 <enrico> present+
16:06:35 <fsasaki> james: had corresponded with chairs to raise an issue, the suggested to post a comment on the ticket
16:06:45 <fsasaki> ... I did not do that, rather sent a note to the list
16:07:01 <fsasaki> ... summary of the note is: this group is not chartered to address the issue
16:07:14 <fsasaki> ... the group is very hard to try address what it is charted to do
16:07:21 <pchampin> Jame's email -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Oct/0003.html
16:07:28 <fsasaki> ... the work on exists goes back many years
16:07:46 <gkellogg> s/Jame's email/James's email/
16:07:51 <fsasaki> ... was never supposed as something of significant level of maturity to get into a RECOMMENDATION
16:08:18 <fsasaki> ... this and other things should be considered with other topics together. The exists topic is not mature enough to discuss
16:08:23 <ktk> q?
16:08:37 <fsasaki> ... happy to discuss this but not on technical terms, because I believe this is not the place to do that
16:08:45 <pfps> present+
16:08:50 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:08:54 <niklasl> present+
16:09:02 <james> james has joined #rdf-star
16:09:11 <fsasaki> ora: one can argue that this is not just errata
16:09:19 <pfps> q+
16:09:19 <AndyS> q+
16:09:22 <fsasaki> ... so it would make sense that this does not belong to our charter
16:09:28 <fsasaki> james: given the scope this is not an errata
16:09:54 <pchampin> q+
16:09:56 <ora> ack pfps
16:09:59 <fsasaki> ktk: my technical estimate is that this is not editorial errata
16:10:13 <fsasaki> pfps: looking up the charter
16:10:27 <AndyS> s/adrian:/james:/
16:10:32 <pchampin> q-
16:11:00 <fsasaki> pfps: I believe we cannot rule this out, looking at the charter
16:11:19 <ora> ack AndyS
16:11:27 <fsasaki> james: the paragraph then say: might consider rechartering
16:12:07 <fsasaki> AndyS: there have been a number of problems identified, it only depends on the weight you give to things
16:12:15 <tl> q+
16:12:17 <Tpt> q+
16:12:22 <ora> ack tl
16:12:41 <fsasaki> tl: I read various comments, they seemed to suggest that this is a big discussion
16:12:57 <fsasaki> ... not only relevant to EXIST but to some other problems, not a quick fix
16:13:23 <ora> ack Tpt
16:13:31 <fsasaki> ... other people who participated in the discussion are not here at the table
16:13:33 <pfps> q+
16:13:43 <fsasaki> tpt: agree, we lack expertise
16:13:55 <fsasaki> ... would another w3c group would get more competent people on this topic
16:14:16 <fsasaki> ... if not, we are the best group to address this
16:14:50 <ora> ack pfps
16:14:58 <fsasaki> ... the topic is not about adding new features but to make explicit what is currently undefined in the sparql spec
16:15:10 <pfps> The paragraph in question is ambiguous.  "This" might refer to addressing any non-editorial errata but it also might refer to integration into other documents.
16:15:10 <fsasaki> pfps: the charter is ambiguous
16:15:26 <ktk> q?
16:15:27 <ktk> q+
16:15:29 <fsasaki> (see the note above)
16:15:34 <ora> ack ktk
16:15:53 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:15:57 <fsasaki> ktk: replying to thomas, hana wants to fix the semantics of sparql exists, which were not thought through
16:15:57 <Souri> present+
16:16:10 <fsasaki> ... she thinks that this should be mixed with extended sparql
16:16:13 <gkellogg> q+
16:16:18 <AndyS> s/hana/Hannah Bast/
16:16:21 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:16:22 <ktk> s/should be mixed/should not be mixed/
16:16:31 <fsasaki> ... hana was excited about us discussing this, i.e. clarifying the current definition
16:16:48 <fsasaki> gkellogg: WG can revise topics according to three different categories
16:16:49 <pchampin> s/hana/Hannah Bast, from Qlever,
16:17:13 <pchampin> q+
16:17:19 <TallTed> q+
16:17:25 <ora> ack pchampin
16:17:28 <fsasaki> gkellogg: if this is an erratum that is an substantive change, it is on scope for this WG
16:17:38 <fsasaki> ... since we have custody for this document
16:17:38 <james> q+
16:17:45 <ktk> s/extended sparql/extending SPARQL/
16:17:59 <tl> q+
16:18:09 <fsasaki> ... lack of the expertise in the WG shows that people how have the expertise to work on exist, are not as compelled by rdf star changes
16:18:37 <fsasaki> ... it is very unlikely that another group will be chartered to fix exist, while this group is working
16:19:04 <fsasaki> pchampin: the charter should not push for substantive changes but should also not prevent addressing substantive errata
16:19:26 <fsasaki> ... agree that there is ambiguity in the statement, but that was the spirit of the charter
16:19:43 <fsasaki> ... proposal on the table is not to make a substantive change but to make the exist definition clearer
16:19:54 <ora> ack TallTed
16:19:58 <fsasaki> ... I am not a sparql expert either, but this is how I interpret the discussion
16:20:15 <fsasaki> TallTed: a substantive change is variably defined
16:20:19 <ora> q+
16:20:28 <fsasaki> ... in many groups I have been involved, this would could as both substantive and editorial
16:20:43 <fsasaki> ... intend is to document something more clearly, to remove ambiguities
16:21:01 <fsasaki> ... none of the changes would render an existing implementation non compliant
16:21:06 <fsasaki> james: not true
16:21:15 <ktk> q+
16:21:19 <fsasaki> TallTed: ok, then I misunderstood something
16:21:30 <fsasaki> ... it still does not rule out making the changes
16:21:33 <ora> ack james
16:21:59 <fsasaki> james: the intent of what andy has done and of the CG that existed was to eliminate divergence that implementations make
16:22:01 <pfps> q+
16:22:09 <ora> q-
16:22:14 <fsasaki> ... if we focus on one result, other implementations will be non complimant
16:22:23 <pchampin> present+ james
16:22:28 <fsasaki> ... you then also end up with clearer conformance
16:22:58 <pchampin> q+
16:23:02 <fsasaki> ... the issue is that other changes needed for sparql will need to be done and make it competitive
16:23:08 <Tpt> q+ have a look at the github discussion
16:23:43 <fsasaki> (discussion on the tone of the discussion)
16:24:11 <pchampin> the charter always said that the deliverables were RDF 1.2 and SPARQL 1.2
16:24:32 <fsasaki> james: if we want to do sparql 1.2, the WG should include other things that should be in 1.2
16:24:40 <ktk> q?
16:24:46 <Tpt> q+ to have a look at the github discussion
16:24:48 <fsasaki> q+
16:24:53 <fsasaki> ... this WG does not have the proper participants to do that
16:25:11 <pfps> q-
16:25:22 <ora> ack tl
16:26:25 <fsasaki> tl: response to thomas, I do not have the knowledge about sparql needed
16:26:34 <fsasaki> ... I understand why the sparql experts are not here
16:26:47 <fsasaki> ... so cannot see how we can be the venue to discuss this
16:26:54 <ora> ack ktk
16:27:04 <fsasaki> ... this is also what I read from Hana's comment in the issue tracker
16:27:27 <fsasaki> ktk: please do not interpret why people are not here
16:27:45 <james> q+
16:27:50 <fsasaki> ... to james, we called the deliverable sparql 1.2, that is how it is
16:28:14 <ora> ack pchampin
16:28:21 <fsasaki> ... about the experts, we have andy and four other people who know well about sparql, please do not say that we miss the expertise
16:28:30 <fsasaki> q-
16:28:33 <pfps> We also have a representative from RDFox in the working group.
16:28:58 <fsasaki> pchampin: the group is chartered to make the next version of sparql
16:29:03 <Tpt> q-
16:29:15 <fsasaki> +1 to adrian about the scope of the charter
16:29:30 <tl> 1. Scope
16:29:30 <tl> The scope of this Working Group is to extend the recommendations defining RDF 1.1 and SPARQL 1.1 with the features introduced by RDF-star.
16:29:40 <tl> https://www.w3.org/2022/08/rdf-star-wg-charter/
16:29:40 <ora> q+
16:29:46 <fsasaki> pchampin: everybody can then decide if they want to join the group
16:29:56 <ora> ack james
16:30:23 <fsasaki> james: I was not a member then the name changed from rdf star to sparql 1.2
16:30:31 <fsasaki> ... as a non member I had no standing
16:30:52 <pchampin> there was never a change... this was part of the WG charter from day 1
16:30:59 <pfps> EXISTS has a clear definition in 1.1.  The definition has strange characteristics, for example it results in invalid syntax.  The definition also has some cases where it produces valid syntax but that part of the definition is (as far as I remember) differs from what every SPARQL implementation does.  So as far as I know, no SPARQL implementation is compliant with the 1.1 definition of EXISTS.
16:31:11 <fsasaki> ... if it would have been charter as a sparql 1.2 group, I would have harder to become a member
16:31:15 <AndyS> q+
16:31:15 <pchampin> q+
16:31:23 <ora> q-
16:31:27 <ora> ack AndyS
16:31:35 <pfps> q+ to comment that my remembrance is that scope is a question largely left to the chairs
16:31:36 <fsasaki> ... there are many things that should happen in 1.2
16:31:50 <niklasl6> niklasl6 has joined #rdf-star
16:31:54 <fsasaki> AndyS: we have 7 implementations in this core already
16:32:06 <ora> ack pchampin
16:32:07 <james> q+
16:32:12 <ktk> s/core/call/
16:32:24 <fsasaki> ... data graph has made suggestions to changes to sparql, which are not covered by this charter
16:32:33 <niklasl8> niklasl8 has joined #rdf-star
16:32:52 <fsasaki> pchampin: we did not make any changes of the charter, sparql 1.2. was in scope from the start
16:33:08 <fsasaki> ... you are right, there is now a long wishlist for sparql in the CG, sparql-dev
16:33:24 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:34:02 <fsasaki> pchampin: once we start sparql 1.2 as a REC, we can now make more changes than to RECs in the past
16:34:22 <fsasaki> ... e.g. including new changes, since one can add new features with a lightweight process
16:34:38 <fsasaki> ... so there can be additional features once we are a REC
16:34:57 <fsasaki> ... but the first set of features will be errata and the rdf-star part
16:35:18 <ora> ack pfps
16:35:18 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to comment that my remembrance is that scope is a question largely left to the chairs
16:35:20 <fsasaki> ... the idea was not to rule out other features of sparql 1.2, but allow them once we have 1.2 published
16:35:39 <fsasaki> pfps: questions of scope are normally left to the chairs
16:35:45 <ora> ack james
16:35:49 <fsasaki> ... I suggest to leave this to the chairs
16:36:08 <fsasaki> james: andy said that my suggestions would be beyond scope
16:36:20 <ora> q+
16:36:26 <fsasaki> ... I agree, and I think they should be discussed with other groups
16:36:27 <AndyS> q+
16:36:43 <fsasaki> ... and exist should be taken up for further evolution in other venues
16:36:58 <ora> ack AndyS
16:37:00 <fsasaki> ... one should have a WG that move such topics forward
16:37:24 <fsasaki> AndyS: the features I meant was changes to sparql that are not errata
16:37:29 <ora> ack ora
16:37:33 <fsasaki> james: the changes are related to rdf-star
16:37:42 <fsasaki> AndyS: they go well beyond rdf-star
16:37:46 <james> q+
16:37:58 <fsasaki> ora: agree with peter's suggestions that chairs pick this up, we go in circle
16:38:19 <fsasaki> ... I do not think that the sparl CG has been very active or has shown interest to work on future versions of sparql
16:38:29 <fsasaki> ... in that sense I think: we are it
16:38:53 <fsasaki> ... people like pavel may have expertise but may not be interested in participating in w3c work
16:39:09 <fsasaki> ... this is w3c, we follow up the w3c process
16:39:24 <fsasaki> ... I suggest we pick this up next tuesday in our chairs meeting
16:39:31 <ora> ack james
16:39:37 <fsasaki> ... I see nobody else picking this up, so I think I think we should handle this
16:39:54 <fsasaki> james: that is why I wrote to the chairs initially
16:40:15 <fsasaki> ora: yes, the discussion was useful in the group, and, the chairs will bring this up again
16:40:16 <pchampin> there is q?
16:40:26 <pchampin> q?
16:40:27 <fsasaki> ... we should table this and go to the next topic
16:40:31 <gkellogg> agenda?
16:40:43 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-star
16:40:47 <pchampin> zakim, open item 2
16:40:47 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Map the annotation syntax to rdfs:states -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:40:55 <pchampin> s/there is q?/
16:40:59 <tl> q+
16:41:04 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:41:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/03-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
16:41:22 <pfps> q?
16:42:15 <fsasaki> tl: I can present it, but would then suggest to postpone it
16:42:33 <fsasaki> ora: use this slot to put a bug in our heads so that we think about it
16:42:43 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
16:42:59 <fsasaki> tl: here are some slides from tpac about the topic
16:43:35 <fsasaki> tl: suggestion is to map annotation syntax to rdf:states
16:44:02 <fsasaki> ... we have unasserted assertations use case , problem of reification itself, turtle star syntactic sugar
16:44:20 <fsasaki> ... and then the mapping to n-triples without round tripping
16:44:25 <ora> ack tl
16:44:25 <pchampin> that's why it's called "syntactic sugar"
16:44:39 <fsasaki> ... I am proposing rdf:states to solve the issue
16:45:29 <fsasaki> on "unasserted assertations", at tpac we learned about use cases like competing viewpoints and others
16:45:45 <fsasaki> ... competing viewpoints is not core semantic web but also not a niche case
16:46:25 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
16:46:39 <fsasaki> tl: other type of use case is annotating qualifications
16:46:50 <fsasaki> ... rdf-star does not do that explicitly
16:47:16 <fsasaki> ... reification is not related
16:48:03 <fsasaki> ... on unasserted assertations, I had to learn that there are different intuitions
16:48:20 <fsasaki> ... I am logic driven, unasserted always means not endorsed
16:48:35 <fsasaki> ... the annotation on that reified statement may reflect that
16:48:56 <fsasaki> ...  I may for example want to describe a fact that I am opposed to
16:49:19 <fsasaki> ... if the same fact is added to the graph, it looks like endorsement
16:49:30 <fsasaki> ... that was driving my approach to have another property
16:49:58 <fsasaki> ... logic driven has its elegance, is simple, but it conflicts with my personal intuition
16:50:11 <fsasaki> s/am logic/am not logic/
16:50:25 <fsasaki> tl: there is also the property graph intiution
16:50:37 <fsasaki> ... PG edge exists, there is no may, may not etc.
16:50:54 <fsasaki> ... I take that too as a sign that we need something else besides reification
16:51:08 <fsasaki> ... that covers all qualification use cases that add details to a fact
16:51:33 <fsasaki> ... reification is a weak construct, it is on purpose weak since it makes problems with logic
16:51:46 <fsasaki> ... it does not meat what the syntax suggests
16:51:52 <william_vw> s/meat/meet
16:52:05 <fsasaki> ... entailment can provide a solid link
16:52:22 <fsasaki> ... it will make things very clear on the logic level
16:52:35 <fsasaki> ... but we do not have entailment on the ground level of the RDF
16:52:57 <fsasaki> ... on syntactic sugar, we have different types of syntactic sugar
16:53:03 <pchampin> simple entailment exists even at the "lower layer" of RDF
16:53:15 <fsasaki> ... in turtle star we have 2 syntactic sugar
16:54:06 <fsasaki> ... turtle star reflects the layman intuition
16:54:34 <fsasaki> ... there was nether a discussion about the annotation syntax, because it makes things very clear
16:54:45 <fsasaki> ... the statements exists and it is being annotated
16:55:06 <fsasaki> ... these two syntactic sugar constructs is what we really need
16:55:19 <fsasaki> ... everything else can go into annotations, extra vocabularies etc.
16:55:29 <fsasaki> ... that is not what we should do
16:55:57 <fsasaki> ... problem with the two syntax variants is that they do not round trip
16:58:22 <fsasaki> ... there is no way right now in the example to say "I will never endorse the triple" for one of two annotations in turtle
16:58:44 <fsasaki> ... let us assume a property called unstated
16:59:09 <fsasaki> ... if you query data, every query will need to check if a property was unstated. who wants to do that?
16:59:16 <ktk> q?
16:59:21 <william_vw> note that the reason that asserted are prevalent may be related to the fact that reification was wholly underspecified until now
16:59:22 <pfps> As I have stated in the issue, I see no argument here that would cause me to believe that rdf:states should be included in RDF, which, in my view, is a very simple formalism.  If these facilities are wanted they should be in some extension of RDF or RDFS.
16:59:24 <fsasaki> ... as soon as you got competing view points there is an issue
16:59:31 <niklasl> :Foo :madeOf :Bar {| :rejectedBy :Alice |} .  << :Bar :madeOf :Foo >> :believedBy :Bob . # ?
16:59:41 <fsasaki> ora: thanks a lot for the presentation! It was a good summary of the topic
17:00:05 <pchampin> is this a topic for the Semantics TF tomorrow?
17:00:06 <fsasaki> ora: just one remark, this sounds like adding a memory how the graph was constructed
17:00:13 <fsasaki> ... these things are missing from RDF
17:00:21 <fsasaki> ... can you share the slides?
17:00:24 <fsasaki> tl: yes
17:00:24 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:00:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/03-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:01:47 <pchampin> s/topic: sparql exists/
17:01:49 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:01:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/03-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:02:22 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
17:12:54 <pfps> pfps has left #rdf-star
17:24:55 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:40:05 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:50:48 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
<pchampin> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/10/17-rdf-star-minutes.html