15:55:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:55:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/10/17-rdf-star-irc
15:55:44 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:55:48 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:55:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/17-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:55:53 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:56:09 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-star WG biweekly focused meeting
15:56:15 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
15:56:29 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e7387703-d1cb-4215-a7e1-eec9b4af24d4/20241017T120000/
15:56:29 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:56:29 <agendabot> agenda+ DST switch
15:56:29 <agendabot> agenda+ Map the annotation syntax to rdfs:states (feedback Semantics TF) -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128
15:56:29 <agendabot> agenda+ Addressing SPARQL EXISTS errata -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/156
15:56:29 <agendabot> agenda+ Un-star operation to support RDF Dataset Canonicalization? -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114
15:56:29 <agendabot> agenda+ Material about rdf:ReificationProperty -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/127
15:56:30 <agendabot> agenda+ Define an interpretation of Triple Terms -> 5 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49
15:56:33 <agendabot> agenda+ Additional "needs discussion" issues -> 6 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/6
15:56:36 <agendabot> agenda+ Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
15:56:54 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: biweekly focused meeting — 2024-10-17 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e7387703-d1cb-4215-a7e1-eec9b4af24d4/20241017T120000/
15:57:48 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/10/03-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:57:48 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/10/24-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:58:05 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
15:58:20 <TallTed> present+
15:58:39 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:58:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/17-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:58:49 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
15:58:49 <enrico> present+
15:59:11 <gkellogg> present+
15:59:18 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
16:00:07 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:00:09 <niklasl> present+
16:00:17 <pfps> present+
16:00:27 <ktk> present+
16:00:49 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
16:00:49 <Zakim> Present: TallTed, enrico, gkellogg, niklasl, pfps, ktk
16:00:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, eBremer, enrico, olaf, niklasl, gkellogg, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, TallTed, timbl, csarven, gtw, agendabot, gb, Tpt, driib5, rhiaro, pchampin, ktk
16:00:55 <TallTed> agenda?
16:01:07 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
16:01:19 <tl> present+
16:01:38 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
16:01:55 <olaf> present+
16:02:04 <gtw> present+
16:02:13 <ora> present+
16:02:35 <ora> chair+
16:02:46 <eBremer> present+
16:02:47 <olaf> scribe+
16:03:00 <AndyS> present+
16:03:37 <olaf> ora: We have anew member
16:03:41 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:03:47 <Souri> present+
16:04:11 <olaf> ... Bilal Ben Marhia
16:04:27 <ora> s/Marhia/Mahria
16:05:34 <TallTed> s/anew/a new/
16:06:43 <TallTed> q+ to show how to join the queue
16:06:43 <TallTed> q-
16:07:22 <olaf> ora: DST switch -  there will be one week when Europe and North America are out of sync
16:07:31 <olaf> ... there was a massage to the chairs
16:07:41 <olaf> s/massage/message
16:07:58 <Bilalox> Bilalox has joined #rdf-star
16:08:11 <olaf> ... it says that the meetings are anchored to the North American time zones
16:08:38 <olaf> ... which means it will be one hour earlier for Europeans during that week
16:08:44 <ktk> RRSAgent, next item
16:08:44 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'next item', ktk.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:08:48 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:08:48 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- DST switch -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:08:55 <ktk> Zakim, close item 1
16:08:55 <Zakim> agendum 1, DST switch, closed
16:08:56 <Zakim> I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:08:56 <Zakim> 2. Map the annotation syntax to rdfs:states (feedback Semantics TF) -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 [from agendabot]
16:09:00 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:09:00 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Map the annotation syntax to rdfs:states (feedback Semantics TF) -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:09:24 <olaf> ora: We use the issues list as our backlog
16:09:37 <olaf> ... to prioritize our topics
16:09:51 <ktk> q?
16:10:06 <tl> q+
16:10:09 <olaf> ... anyone from the Sem TF who can report on this topic (#128)?
16:10:09 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 -> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [needs discussion] [discuss-f2f]
16:10:43 <ora> ack tl
16:11:04 <AndyS> Minutes from SemTF -- https://www.w3.org/2024/10/04-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:11:10 <olaf> tl: During the recent Sem TF meeting we went back and forth on the topic
16:11:17 <enrico> q+
16:11:26 <olaf> ... but there was no agreement
16:11:48 <olaf> ... in the end enrico was convinced that it can be split into two separate topics
16:11:53 <ora> ack enrico
16:11:58 <olaf> ... but that is not the solution I was looking for
16:12:05 <olaf> ... I continued working on it
16:12:13 <pchampin> q+
16:12:38 <olaf> enrico: not clear whether we are discussing the annotation syntax or the purpose of the rdfs:states predicate
16:12:45 <olaf> ... which for me are separate things
16:13:15 <olaf> ... We need to look whether there are different proposals.
16:13:26 <tl> q+
16:13:31 <ora> ack pchampin
16:13:49 <olaf> ... While I was absent for three weeks, I didn't follow the discussions but noticed that they are floating around different topics
16:14:06 <pfps> +1 to making a decision now
16:14:13 <olaf> pchampin: In contrast to tl I would not like to continue the discussion in the Sem TF
16:14:34 <gkellogg> +1 to pchampin
16:14:35 <ora> ack tl
16:14:35 <AndyS> +1 to pchampin
16:14:38 <tl> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128#issuecomment-2419225736
16:14:38 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 -> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [needs discussion] [discuss-f2f]
16:14:41 <olaf> ... because it has been quite long already. I don't think tl has convinced us
16:14:46 <pfps> +1 to pchampin
16:15:02 <olaf> tl: I posted my latest comment
16:15:22 <olaf> ... I have different possible mappings; they go in different directions.
16:15:34 <olaf> ... I would at least like to get my questions answered.
16:15:35 <pfps> q+
16:15:51 <niklasl> q+
16:15:54 <olaf> ... I have an open question to niklasl
16:16:11 <olaf> ... Generally, many people here ignore that there is a problem.
16:16:40 <olaf> ... I wouldn't like to have a vote today but, first, answers to my questions.
16:16:50 <ora> ack pfps
16:17:01 <olaf> ... The answers that I have been getting so far are very superficial.
16:17:22 <ora> ack niklasl
16:17:36 <olaf> pfps: In my opinion, tl has received deep answers. I don't see a reason to go forward in this discussion.
16:17:49 <olaf> niklasl: I agree with pfps
16:18:09 <olaf> ... I have given well-thought answers.
16:18:11 <niklasl> :Foo :madeOf :Bar {| :rejectedBy :Alice |} {| :believedBy :Bob |} . # Invokes other "intuitions"?
16:18:27 <tl> q+
16:18:30 <olaf> ... I have not seen that other share the intuitions that tl has
16:18:33 <ora> ack tl
16:18:37 <olaf> s/other/others
16:18:44 <TallTed> q+
16:19:00 <ora> q+ to ask how much is this related to the fact that an RDF graph does not have a "memory" of its construction
16:19:12 <tl> https://gist.github.com/niklasl/f4a5dee1b991ff5a19a33360c6fd3078?permalink_comment_id=5172827
16:19:14 <olaf> tl: to niklasl, I looked at your example and fixed my examples
16:19:22 <olaf> ... but I had other questions
16:19:25 <ora> ack TallTed
16:20:15 <ora> ack ora
16:20:15 <Zakim> ora, you wanted to ask how much is this related to the fact that an RDF graph does not have a "memory" of its construction
16:20:28 <olaf> TallTed: The last comment in that GitHub issue by pchampin tells me that we should design to avoid that people use bad modelling.
16:20:58 <tl> q+
16:21:00 <AndyS> q+
16:21:03 <pfps> q+
16:21:04 <ora> ack tl
16:21:07 <olaf> ora: How much do people here think that the issues brought up by tl are related to whether people consider an RDF graph as a snapshot?
16:21:18 <olaf> tl: It isn't.
16:21:22 <ora> ack AndyS
16:21:28 <TallTed> s/avoid that people use bad modelling/prevent bad modelling, or provide explicit guidance about what is bad modelling and how to model well/
16:21:50 <niklasl> q+
16:21:58 <tl> q+
16:22:05 <olaf> AndyS: When you publish a graph, there is a person behind it. You are making an act in publishing that graph.
16:22:07 <pfps> q-
16:22:24 <olaf> ... We aren't going to make any progress with another discussion.
16:23:17 <ora> ack niklasl
16:23:26 <olaf> ... RDF is not multi tenant, meaning that, if you have multiple view, they should be put into separate graphs
16:23:51 <olaf> niklasl: We going into problem of epistomology
16:24:18 <olaf> ... you have to use domain modelling to capture things
16:24:42 <TallTed> q+ to touch on "intuitions"
16:25:04 <olaf> ... You can even entail that fact when using OWL, based on domain modelling
16:25:29 <ora> ack tl
16:25:37 <ktk> q+
16:25:53 <Tpt> present+
16:25:53 <olaf> tl: About bad modelling, I asked pchampin for an example of how to do it.
16:26:10 <niklasl> It is true if it is asserted
16:26:37 <olaf> ... To niklasl, if it is true or not, then we don't need domain modelling for that. Instead, this needs to be part of RDF.
16:26:46 <olaf> ... Yes, we are going in circles.
16:26:52 <niklasl> q+
16:27:07 <ora> ack TallTed
16:27:07 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to touch on "intuitions"
16:27:09 <olaf> ... To niklasl, ... (?)
16:27:44 <olaf> TallTed: Practical questions should be posable very directly
16:27:45 <pfps> q+
16:28:32 <olaf> ... Regarding intuition, we need to recognize that people who are reading our specs have not participated in our discussions.
16:28:54 <ora> ack ktk
16:29:01 <olaf> ... Hence, we should not be relying on any intuitions. Instead, we must make all intuitions explicit.
16:29:11 <pfps> q+ to say that many things are just outside the purview of RDF
16:29:37 <ora> ack niklasl
16:29:41 <enrico> q+
16:30:16 <TallTed> q+
16:30:25 <olaf> ktk: To tl, you cannot expect replies. People reply to things if they see value in doing so.
16:30:31 <ora> ack pfps
16:30:31 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to say that many things are just outside the purview of RDF
16:30:54 <olaf> pfps: I'm hearing we need to do everything in RDF.
16:31:03 <tl> q+
16:31:09 <olaf> ... but there are lots of things that RDF doesn't do.
16:31:42 <ora> +1 to pfps
16:31:49 <ora> ack enrico
16:31:51 <olaf> ... We are not in the business of solving problems that even philosophers are still discussing.
16:33:26 <olaf> enrico: I have a proposal - should we as a group continue making a distinction between a different reification property (in addition to rdf:reifies)?
16:33:43 <olaf> ... initially I was slightly in favor of this.
16:34:08 <olaf> ... But based on pfps' argument I am not
16:34:22 <olaf> ... My believe is that RDF is an assembly language.
16:34:38 <olaf> ... More powerful abstractions can be put on top.
16:35:02 <ora> ack TallTed
16:35:16 <niklasl> +1 to enrico (particularly re. more powerful abstractions on top)
16:35:28 <olaf> ora: Is your proposal about the distinction between statements about asserted statement versus statements about unasserted statement?
16:35:43 <olaf> enrico: yes, that's one way of looking at it
16:36:32 <olaf> TallTed: We need some way say that "this triple is not stated by me but I want to talk about this triple"
16:36:52 <olaf> ... we went further into talking about graphs
16:37:25 <olaf> ... If we had a syntax for quoted graphs, it would be very easy to use that for single-triple graphs.
16:37:52 <olaf> ... The opposite, is very difficult. And we should have learned that now.
16:38:04 <pfps> q+
16:38:31 <olaf> ... To the discussion about tl, he may not be owed an answer but he is owed respect
16:38:59 <AndyS> q+
16:39:10 <olaf> ... There will be formal objections along the same lines.
16:39:14 <ora> ack tl
16:39:19 <tl> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128#issuecomment-2419225736
16:39:20 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 -> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [needs discussion] [discuss-f2f]
16:39:22 <olaf> ... which we will have to address.
16:39:50 <olaf> tl: I ask everyone to look on the comment I just posted. It's only one page on my screen.
16:40:06 <olaf> ... it shows that we don't know anything.
16:40:11 <niklasl> q+
16:40:39 <olaf> ... It is an unsolved problem.
16:40:55 <Souri> q+ to say that IMO, for keeping RDF simple and concise, the :s :p :o . triple, if present, should not have anything to do with possible presence or absence of :r1 rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> OR :r2 rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>>  (and what I say about :r1 or :r2).
16:41:10 <pfps> q+ to say that clarity is in the eye of the beholder
16:41:23 <olaf> ... It is not only about annotations on unasserted statement but also for asserted statement.
16:41:40 <ora> ack pfps
16:41:40 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to say that clarity is in the eye of the beholder
16:42:19 <olaf> pfps: tl sees certain things with some form of clarity, I and others see things with another clarity
16:42:25 <olaf> ... That's a problem.
16:42:53 <ora> ack AndyS
16:43:10 <olaf> AndyS: We should separate the two issues of syntax.
16:43:24 <pchampin> q+
16:43:34 <olaf> ... I am unclear whether the notion of rdfs:states has been discussed
16:43:52 <tl> Andy please ask again
16:43:59 <ora> ack niklasl
16:44:01 <olaf> ... because there is always syntax-related things in the discussion.
16:44:05 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128#issuecomment-2414229521
16:44:06 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 -> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [needs discussion] [discuss-f2f]
16:44:47 <olaf> niklasl: I agree that it's important to not consider the syntax for the discussion.
16:45:05 <tl> q+
16:45:20 <olaf> ... My problem stems from the fact that we are describing reifiers.
16:45:53 <olaf> ... I never arrive at the same conclusion as tl
16:46:25 <ora> ack Souri
16:46:25 <Zakim> Souri, you wanted to say that IMO, for keeping RDF simple and concise, the :s :p :o . triple, if present, should not have anything to do with possible presence or absence of :r1
16:46:28 <Zakim> ... rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> OR :r2 rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>>  (and what I say about :r1 or :r2).
16:46:36 <olaf> ... I don't see that there is anything that makes the reifiers asserted. They are just there.
16:46:52 <olaf> Souri: RDF should be as simple/concise as possible.
16:47:08 <olaf> ... Not to cover things that can be covered by RDFS, OWL, etc
16:47:34 <pchampin> q-
16:47:35 <olaf> ... Two reifiers for the same SPO are completely independent of one another
16:47:46 <olaf> ... as far as RDF is concerned.
16:47:59 <olaf> ... Applications can do something else on top.
16:48:19 <pchampin> q+
16:48:41 <olaf> Looking at it that way, keeps RDF as the assembly language that it is.
16:48:42 <ora> ack tl
16:48:55 <olaf> tl: Annotation is complicated. That's the problem.
16:49:07 <olaf> ... The world is not flat.
16:49:44 <olaf> ... It's like giving you a chair with only three legs.
16:49:52 <olaf> ... It is an incomplete design.
16:50:20 <olaf> ... If we drop the syntactic sugar, I would feel less bad about it.
16:50:48 <olaf> ... The annotation syntax is just bogus because it gives an impression of something that is not in the data.
16:51:12 <ora> ack pchampin
16:51:12 <olaf> ... Or we define it in a way that it is something in the data.
16:51:50 <enrico> q+
16:51:58 <olaf> pchampin: I hear TallTed about facing future formal objections, but I think it is an unfair assessment of the situation.
16:52:31 <olaf> ... A lot of effort has been spent on trying to understand and respond to tl's points.
16:53:07 <olaf> ... I will respond to tl's latest comment but I still don't see the issue.
16:53:32 <ora> ack enrico
16:53:45 <olaf> ... We have spend a lot of time trying to appreciate tl's points.
16:54:09 <olaf> enrico: I understand the argumentation of tl and I believe this argumentation is sound.
16:54:34 <Souri> q+ to say that IMO the following two rdf:reifies triples can be present at the same time, independent of the presence or absence of the :s :p :o triple in the graph ==> :r1 rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> ; rdf:type my:Assertion . :r2 rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> ; rdf:type my:Hypothesis .
16:54:37 <olaf> ... But, reification is not only about annotation in the use cases that tl focuses on.
16:55:19 <olaf> ... Since RDF is an assembly language, just triples, this is not the place.
16:55:53 <olaf> ... There are many important things to capture, but RDF is not the place.
16:56:01 <pchampin> I don't claim this is an invalid use case; I just don't agree that it should be baked into the concrete syntax or the data model
16:56:17 <olaf> ... We are introducing a very generic notion of reification.
16:56:23 <pchampin> it can and should be addressed by an additional vocabulary
16:56:26 <niklasl> q+
16:57:05 <olaf> ... tl is not wrong in saying that these use cases should be treated properly, but I don't think we should make that part of RDF
16:57:19 <ora> ack Souri
16:57:19 <Zakim> Souri, you wanted to say that IMO the following two rdf:reifies triples can be present at the same time, independent of the presence or absence of the :s :p :o triple in the graph
16:57:22 <Zakim> ... ==> :r1 rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> ; rdf:type my:Assertion . :r2 rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> ; rdf:type my:Hypothesis .
16:57:44 <olaf> Souri: What tl says is important, but it should stay outside of RDF.
16:58:25 <tl> Souri but then we shouldn't support them with syntactic sugar that isn't backed up in the formalism
16:58:37 <olaf> ... It is up to the data designer to create their own vocabulary.
16:58:48 <ora> STRAWPOLL: Do we distinguish between statements about asserted statements and statements about unasserted statements?
16:58:55 <olaf> ora: I will do a straw poll
16:59:04 <enrico> -1
16:59:25 <gkellogg> -1
16:59:27 <TallTed> +0.9
16:59:46 <olaf> ... -1 indicates that you do not distinguish
16:59:57 <tl> n/a
17:00:00 <olaf> ... and +1 that you want to distinguish
17:00:04 <ora> -1
17:00:08 <AndyS> -1 : separate syntax and data model
17:00:10 <niklasl> -0.9 (I think this distinction can be modeled for particular types of reifiers using OWL)
17:00:14 <eBremer> -1
17:00:25 <ktk> -1
17:00:30 <pchampin> -1: same as AndyS
17:00:31 <pfps> -1 as far as the question goes
17:00:32 <Souri> -1 to say that we stay with ref:reifies as the only one (no distinction about asserted vs unasserted)
17:00:52 <olaf> -0.5
17:00:53 <gkellogg> s/ref:reifies/rdf:reifies/
17:00:59 <TallTed> Key questions are *where*, *when*, and *how* the distinction is made
17:01:13 <tl> +1 to ted
17:01:24 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:01:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/17-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:01:33 <Souri> distinction should be outside of RDF, IMO
17:01:45 <pchampin> +1 TallTed
17:01:52 <olaf> enrico: Sem TF meeting tomorrow about unstar interpretation of triple terms
17:01:57 <TallTed> We have rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, rdf:object which *can* be used for un-asserted, and *could* be populated via semantic sugar (so we never have to *say* those rdf:* predicates)
17:02:05 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:02:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/17-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:02:35 <TallTed> s|next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/10/24-rdf-star-minutes.html|next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/10/18-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:02:41 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:02:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/17-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:02:48 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
17:22:52 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:40:54 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:47:05 <timbl> timbl has joined #rdf-star
18:56:12 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:16:38 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:19:38 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:40:01 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:45:45 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:08:48 <timbl> timbl has joined #rdf-star
<pchampin> present+