00:45:26 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
01:05:01 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
10:00:01 <driib5> driib5 has joined #rdf-star
10:26:18 <timbl> timbl has joined #rdf-star
11:24:04 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
12:46:21 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
13:55:20 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
13:56:46 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
13:56:55 <pfps> present+
14:00:52 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
14:00:57 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
14:04:15 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
14:04:43 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
14:04:48 <enrico> present+
14:05:35 <gkellogg> present+
14:05:41 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
14:05:45 <Souri> present+
14:05:45 <AndyS> present+
14:05:49 <AndyS> scribe?
14:05:59 <tl> present+
14:06:07 <AndyS> and new people intros?
14:06:23 <AndyS> zakim, who is here?
14:06:23 <Zakim> Present: TallTed, enrico, gkellogg, niklasl, pfps, ktk, tl, olaf, gtw, ora, eBremer, AndyS, Souri, Tpt
14:06:26 <Zakim> On IRC I see Souri, enrico, niklasl, tl, gkellogg, pfps, AndyS, timbl, driib5, RRSAgent, Zakim, csarven, gtw, agendabot, gb, Tpt, rhiaro, pchampin, ktk
14:06:43 <Bilalox> Bilalox has joined #rdf-star
14:06:58 <AndyS> q+
14:07:42 <gkellogg> rrsagent, make minutes
14:07:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/18-rdf-star-minutes.html gkellogg
14:07:56 <tl> present+
14:08:05 <gkellogg> rrsagent, make logs public
14:08:12 <AndyS> present+
14:08:21 <pchampin> RRSAgent, bye
14:08:21 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
14:08:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:08:45 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/10/18-rdf-star-irc
14:08:47 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:08:48 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
14:08:52 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star Task Force meeting
14:09:02 <AndyS> present+
14:09:06 <pchampin> present+
14:09:06 <AndyS> zakim, who is here?
14:09:06 <Zakim> Present: niklasl, AndyS, pchampin
14:09:06 <gkellogg> preent+
14:09:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, JeffreyFreeman, Bilalox, Souri, enrico, niklasl, tl, gkellogg, pfps, AndyS, timbl, driib5, csarven, gtw, agendabot, gb, Tpt, rhiaro, pchampin, ktk
14:09:22 <gkellogg> present+
14:09:30 <pchampin> q+
14:09:32 <gkellogg> s/preent+//
14:09:40 <AndyS> q+
14:09:59 <gkellogg> rrsagent, make minutes
14:10:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/18-rdf-star-minutes.html gkellogg
14:10:38 <JeffreyFreeman> present+ Jeffrey_Phillips_Freeman,Bilal_Ben_Mahria,Hamza_Khyari
14:11:22 <JeffreyFreeman> Zakim, who is here?
14:11:22 <Zakim> Present: niklasl, AndyS, pchampin, gkellogg, Jeffrey_Phillips_Freeman, Bilal_Ben_Mahria, Hamza_Khyari
14:11:24 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, JeffreyFreeman, Bilalox, Souri, enrico, niklasl, tl, gkellogg, pfps, AndyS, timbl, driib5, csarven, gtw, agendabot, gb, Tpt, rhiaro, pchampin, ktk
14:11:30 <pchampin> q?
14:11:30 <tl> q+
14:12:14 <niklasl> q+
14:14:16 <gkellogg> ack pchampin
14:14:25 <niklasl> present+
14:14:52 <enrico> q+
14:16:22 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:16:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/18-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
14:16:35 <pchampin> topic: the unstar mapping
14:16:35 <enrico> ack andys
14:16:53 <pchampin> enrico: [thoughts on the semantic implications of the unstar mapping]
14:17:08 <pchampin> pchampin: we need to be clear about the purpose of the unstar mapping
14:18:12 <pchampin> Topic: Introductions
14:18:40 <pchampin> JeffreyFreeman: we (CleverThis) are a new W3C member, and are mostly here to listen, excited about RDF-star
14:18:52 <pchampin> ... We are an Open-Source AI based company
14:19:35 <pchampin> ... Interested about the ethics around AI, planning to launch a non-profit on that topic
14:19:37 <enrico> ack tl
14:20:44 <pchampin> Hanza: I'm a junior ontologist, with CleverThis. Trying to lear what you guys are doing.
14:21:49 <pfps> present+
14:22:32 <pchampin> Bilal: I was there in yesterday's meeting, I introduced myself there.
14:22:44 <pchampin> ... Based in Morocco. Lead ontologist at CleverThis.
14:23:01 <pchampin> ... Interesting in modeling vocabularies and solving modeling issues with RDF-star.
14:23:20 <pchampin> Topiic: The unstar mapping
14:23:33 <pchampin> s/Topiic:/Topic:/
14:23:47 <pchampin> tl: I think the unstar mapping is a low hanging fruit, we should do it
14:24:22 <pchampin> ... I don't know if we want to unstar the abstract triple terms, but this would need a new vocabulary.
14:24:40 <pchampin> ... I did not understand the problems enrico pointed out.
14:25:40 <pchampin> ... Reifiers are similar to standard reification, modulo the many-to-many relation.
14:26:06 <pchampin> ... I think the use-case is very much aligned with what LPGs do.
14:26:54 <pchampin> niklasl: to answer enrico's questions, about my needs.
14:27:12 <pchampin> ... We are using an OWL toolchain. For this, unstar would be sufficient.
14:27:58 <hamza> hamza has joined #rdf-star
14:28:59 <pchampin> ... We want the OWL that we already have to preserve atomicity (?)
14:29:33 <pchampin> ... It might be frugal to reuse the reification vocabulary, but I see more and more arguments against that.
14:29:57 <pchampin> ... I'm fine with new terms if that's deemed clear.
14:30:29 <enrico> ack niklasl
14:30:32 <pchampin> ... Using OWL, one could entail standard reification from a specific typed reifier. That's fine from my point of view.
14:30:57 <pchampin> enrico: to pchampin, I believe that unstar is not only syntactic.
14:31:15 <enrico> :a rdf:reifies <<(:b :c :d)>>.
14:31:15 <pchampin> ... from a semantics point of view, you have to prove the correctness of the unstar, prove that you get the same result.
14:31:26 <enrico> COMPILES TO (only in simple RDF):
14:31:37 <pchampin> ... If we have a reification statement (see above), this compiles to (see below)
14:31:42 <enrico> :a rdf:reifies _:t.
14:31:42 <enrico> _:t rdf*:subject :b.
14:31:42 <enrico> _:t rdf*:predicate :c.
14:31:42 <enrico> _:t rdf*:object :d.
14:31:51 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
14:31:57 <enrico> [with some proviso]
14:32:26 <pchampin> ... there is some proviso. You must map all equal triple terms to the same bnode.
14:32:50 <pchampin> ... This is not only a syntactic check, because triple terms using semantically equal terms are also equal.
14:32:53 <enrico> ∀t1,t2,x,y,z. ((t1 rdf*:subject x) ⋀ (t1 rdf*:predicate y) ⋀ (t1 rdf*:object z) ⋀ (t2 rdf*:subject x) ⋀ (t2 rdf*:predicate y) ⋀ (t2 rdf*:object z)) → (t1 owl:sameas t2)
14:33:10 <pchampin> ... The implication above should always hold.
14:33:12 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #rdf-star
14:33:56 <pchampin> q+
14:34:05 <hamza> hamza has joined #rdf-star
14:34:28 <AndyS> rrsagent, publish minutes
14:34:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/18-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS
14:34:36 <pchampin> ... This implication makes things complicated.
14:34:54 <pchampin> ... I expect all languages on top of RDF 1.2, esp. OWL, to enforce this.
14:35:30 <pchampin> ... If we stick to simple RDF, that's fine.
14:35:58 <pchampin> ... If would not suggest to reuse the old reification vocabulary, because people have their own expectations about it.
14:36:00 <TallTed> RRSAgent, pointer?
14:36:00 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2024/10/18-rdf-star-irc#T14-36-00
14:36:46 <TallTed> present+
14:37:00 <pchampin> ... I think that the unstar mapping can be used for canonicalization.
14:37:00 <enrico> ack enrico
14:37:16 <tl> q+ to ask if enricos  "∀t1,t2,x,y,z. (...." etc formula refers to abstract triple terms
14:37:38 <TallTed> i|present+ Jeffrey_Phillips_Freeman,Bilal_Ben_Mahria,Hamza_Khyari|agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20241018T100000/|
14:38:33 <pchampin> pchampin: what do you mean by "being the same" for the graph and the unstared graph?
14:38:45 <enrico> ack pchampin
14:39:00 <pchampin> enrico: I meant that an implementation using the unstarred graph does the same thing as an implementation using the original graph
14:39:21 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/10/17-rdf-star-minutes.html
14:39:21 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/10/24-rdf-star-minutes.html
14:39:37 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:39:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/18-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
14:39:45 <pchampin> tl: the first example you gave above, do you mean to map an occurrence?
14:40:07 <niklasl> q+
14:40:12 <pchampin> ... Why do you think it would be dangerous to reuse the old reification vocabulary?
14:40:28 <pchampin> enrico: because the original graph could use this vocabulary, this would mess things up.
14:41:01 <enrico> ack tl
14:41:01 <Zakim> tl, you wanted to ask if enricos  "∀t1,t2,x,y,z. (...." etc formula refers to abstract triple terms
14:42:48 <pchampin> enrico: by occurrence, do you mean reifier?
14:42:50 <pchampin> tl: yes
14:43:07 <pchampin> enrico: so in my example, the reifier does not play any special role in the unstar mapping.
14:43:13 <enrico> ack niklasl
14:43:37 <pchampin> niklasl: if I get this correctly, this is great from my point of view
14:44:12 <pchampin> ... given the constraints you add to these properties (the implication above) it is obvious that we should not reuse the old reification vocabulary.
14:44:16 <pchampin> q+
14:44:24 <enrico> ack pchampin
14:45:39 <niklasl> q+
14:45:46 <TallTed> q+
14:45:55 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
14:46:05 <pfps> present+
14:46:20 <enrico> ack niklasl
14:46:21 <pchampin> pchampin: the unstar mapping would never produce duplicate bnode for the same triple, right?
14:46:30 <TallTed> s/unstared/unstarred/
14:46:34 <pchampin> ... the problem would only occur when people merge two unstarred graphs
14:46:53 <pchampin> enrico: yes, but I don't even think that's a problem. People will merge RDF 1.2 graphs, not unstarred graphs.
14:47:00 <pchampin> pchampin: not sure I agree with that.
14:48:00 <enrico> ack tallted
14:48:11 <pchampin> niklasl: you could avoid the problem with some kind of skolemization, I think
14:48:49 <tl> q+
14:48:50 <pchampin> ... but this could have its own problem, including with canonicalization
14:48:57 <enrico> ack tl
14:48:57 <tl> :r rdf:reifies <<( :Alice :buys :Car )>> ;
14:48:57 <tl>    rdfstar:subject [ :age 18n ] .
14:49:20 <pchampin> TallTed: note that the "rdf*" is probably not a valid prefix, so we should aboid using it
14:49:28 <niklasl> q+
14:49:39 <pchampin> tl: what would happen with the triples above?
14:50:00 <tl> :r rdf:reifies <<( :Alice :buys :Car )>> ;
14:50:00 <tl>    rdf:subject [ :age 18n ] .
14:50:02 <pchampin> enrico: I would not allow people to use the "unstar vocabulary" directly. This should be reserved to the compiler.
14:50:02 <niklasl> Yes.
14:50:18 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-turtle/#grammar-production-PrefixedName
14:50:22 <enrico> ack niklasl
14:50:50 <pchampin> tl: what about using rdf:subject (see above) then? Or do we need another vocabulary?
14:51:22 <pchampin> niklasl: I don't think that we need another one, nor that we want to model that kind of thing...
14:51:44 <pchampin> ... This is bad modelling in my point of view.
14:52:04 <pchampin> tl: it is qualifying Alice in that relation
14:52:08 <pchampin> q+
14:52:35 <pchampin> niklasl: I see that, but I'm pretty sure that rdf:subject would not convey that meaning.
14:52:55 <pchampin> tl: could we define a vocabulary to do that?
14:53:00 <AndyS> :a rdf:reifies <<( _:b :p :o )>> . _:b  :age 18 ;
14:53:08 <pchampin> niklasl: I would not do it in the RDF vocabulary.
14:53:24 <pchampin> tl: I think it is in our charter to do that.
14:53:35 <enrico> ack pchampin
14:53:51 <Souri> Would having an Alice avatar work? ==> :Alice18 :age 18 . :r rdf:reifies <<( :Alice18 :buys :Car )>> .
14:54:20 <tl> @souri that would work, but its much more complicated
14:54:54 <AndyS> q+
14:55:03 <enrico> ack andys
14:55:13 <pchampin> enrico: if we define an unstar mapping, we need to raise all these issues.
14:55:40 <pchampin> AndyS: our first decision would be whether to define it at all.
14:55:52 <tl> at times I used rdfx:onSubject/onPreicate/onObject in examples. maybe that's clearer
14:56:13 <pchampin> ... We could decide not to do anything, that would be a WG decision.
14:56:37 <pchampin> enrico: it seems to me that if we do it this way ("compilation") it would work for c14n.
14:56:44 <pchampin> <pchampin> +1 enrico
14:57:18 <niklasl> +1
14:57:22 <pchampin> q+
14:57:32 <enrico> ack pchampin
14:57:55 <gkellogg> q+
14:58:05 <tl> q+
14:58:08 <AndyS> q+
15:00:19 <enrico> ack gkellog
15:00:21 <enrico> q+
15:00:30 <niklasl> And keep them well-formed, ideally have a key on the spo, etc.
15:00:34 <pchampin> pchampin: I think that beyond c14n, we can provide guidance for people to implement RDF 1.2 full without implementing triple terms
15:01:06 <pchampin> ... we should warn them about the issue with merge, but I don't think that we have to do more
15:01:16 <pchampin> gkellogg: I agree with pchampin
15:01:38 <pchampin> ... it does not really matter who defines that mapping, but we don't different mappings to be define;
15:01:50 <pchampin> ... that's what makes our group the right place to do it.
15:02:00 <niklasl> +1 to gkellogg on it needs to be defined, and on "unstarring" a query too
15:02:00 <pchampin> ... Unstar for SPARQL queries is also important.
15:02:18 <enrico> ack tl
15:02:41 <pchampin> tl: it is such a low hanging fruit that people will do it.
15:03:04 <pchampin> ... By defining it for them, we can spare them the mistakes they are likeky to do.
15:03:18 <enrico> ack andys
15:03:51 <niklasl> +1 to AndyS
15:03:56 <pchampin> ... Also to help people use RDF 1.2 graphs on legacy RDF 1.1 implementations.
15:04:20 <pchampin> AndyS: I also think we should do it, and we should also compile base direction (using the JSON-LD approach).
15:04:32 <pchampin> q+
15:04:37 <enrico> q-
15:04:39 <niklasl> (only *almost*, if the results contained triples encoded in IRI:s ;P )
15:05:00 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:05:12 <pchampin> ... More complicated for SPARQL, hard to convert back to RDF 1.2.
15:06:12 <tl> s/onPreicate/onPredicate
15:07:09 <pchampin> pchampin: unstarring to RDF 1.1 makes sense for the purpose of reusing legacy implementations
15:08:01 <pchampin> i|unstarring|... select result containing triple terms need to be expanded back
15:08:18 <pchampin> q?
15:08:34 <tl> reification vocabulary proposal: rdf:termSubject/termPredicate/termObject
15:08:58 <AndyS> q+
15:09:37 <niklasl> Or rdf:tripleSubject , ... tl? (IRIs, bnodes and literals are terms too).
15:10:19 <tl> @niklas not sure...
15:10:27 <pchampin> pchampin: my other point was about unstarring to graph-only implementations (this was raised during TPAC)
15:10:27 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:10:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/18-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:10:40 <enrico> ack andys
15:10:41 <pchampin> ... With the current proposal, a graph unstars to a graph, and a dataset unstars to a dataset.
15:10:45 <pchampin> ... I can live with that.
15:11:24 <pchampin> AndyS: lets not make our life too hard by solving problems that do not exist.
15:11:58 <niklasl> +1 to AndyS
15:12:03 <pchampin> q+
15:12:11 <enrico> q+
15:12:20 <pchampin> ... I see traction for the dataset-based unstar, but it creates a risk of graph-name clash
15:12:26 <pchampin> ... mapping graphs to graphs is more natural
15:12:55 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114
15:12:55 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114 -> Issue 114 Un-star operation to support RDF Dataset Canonicalization? (by niklasl) [needs discussion] [discuss-f2f]
15:12:57 <TallTed> i|present+ Jeffrey_Phillips_Freeman|scribe: pchampin
15:12:57 <TallTed> i|present+ Jeffrey_Phillips_Freeman|chair: enrico
15:13:42 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:13:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/18-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:15:16 <tl> q+
15:15:23 <pchampin> pchampin: the name-class risk of my previous approach (see github issue above) was rather low ;
15:15:29 <TallTed> (yes, I think something like rdfx:onSubject/onPredicate/onObject would be clearer and much less likely to be confused with rdf:Subject, etc.)
15:15:41 <pchampin> ... here, people must refrain from using the rdf-star:subject / predicate / objects anywhere in their graph
15:15:57 <pchampin> ... in practice not a big problem, but we need to carefully consider this trade-off
15:16:53 <pchampin> enrico: [question to niklasl]
15:17:01 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
15:17:05 <enrico> present+
15:17:16 <pchampin> niklasl: there is a connection between how unstar is defined and entailment regimes
15:17:56 <pchampin> ... I would like to be able to use the same OWL axioms with RDF 1.2 or unstarred RDF 1.1
15:18:07 <pchampin> <pchampin> for me this is a much harder task!
15:18:57 <pchampin> enrico: I call it a compilation, because this is one-way. We don't need to care about the unicity constraint.
15:19:08 <tl> niklasl re: "Or rdf:tripleSubject , ... tl? (IRIs, bnodes and literals are terms too)." i agree (now, after a little thinking)
15:19:09 <pchampin> ... In OWL, the unicity constraints becomes explicit.
15:19:34 <enrico> q?
15:19:39 <pchampin> niklasl: I'm happy with using OWL as is. I don't want to start a new OWL WG.
15:19:41 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:19:44 <enrico> ack enrico
15:19:44 <pchampin> q-
15:20:32 <pchampin> tl: on the github issue above, there was a discussion on focusing on the reifiers rather than on the individual triple terms.
15:20:47 <pchampin> ... I would prefer to go that way instead of mimicing the triple-terms.
15:21:10 <enrico> q+
15:21:14 <enrico> ack tl
15:21:15 <pchampin> ... We got further from the many-to-many design. We have an opportunity to go closer to named graphs.
15:21:31 <pchampin> enrico: I see this development towards graph as appealing, but very dangerous.
15:21:49 <pchampin> q+
15:21:56 <niklasl> I agree with tl that you *can* use the identifier of a reifier as a name for the graphs. Just because there is nothing preventing that. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good idea. It depends.
15:21:59 <pchampin> ... You would have named graphs violating the basic principles of graphs, namely the scope of bnodes.
15:22:04 <enrico> ack enrico
15:22:26 <pchampin> tl: the rdf:reifies property would define the semantics of how I refer to this graph.
15:22:58 <pchampin> ... It would define a precise semantics, but only when refering to the graph via rdf:reifies.
15:23:09 <enrico> +1 to niklasl
15:23:58 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:25:40 <pchampin> pchampin: syntactically, named graphs in a dataset are allowed to share bnodes.
15:26:38 <pchampin> ... semantically, of course, it is undefined whether those "same" bnodes quantified together or separatedly
15:27:41 <niklasl> Divide by PI to get some idea of how much actual time we have to do the work? :P
15:28:08 <pchampin> AndyS: we need to prioritize, we have a tight schedule, even with the rechartering
15:28:34 <pchampin> gkellogg: I think the unstarring could be left to the maintenance mode
15:28:35 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
15:28:54 <pchampin> ... I think it should be normative, but this does not impact the rest of the spec.
15:30:00 <Souri> IMO, we need to prioritize picking one of these: 1) rdf:reifies only, vs. 2) rdf:reifies + rdf:Reification property class, vs. 3) rdf:reifies + rdfs:states
15:30:26 <pchampin> pchampin: yes, even normative, it could be added as a "new feature" (class 4 change) as we made the decision to allow them, in the spec
15:30:39 <pchampin> ... good point gkellogg, this could be defer after we publish the REC
15:30:47 <pchampin> AndyS: I would rather have it as a separate document
15:32:30 <pchampin> tl: are we talking about postponing the unstar mapping?
15:32:54 <enrico> q?
15:32:54 <niklasl> q+
15:33:02 <tl> s/the unstar mapping/the graph-based unstar mapping
15:33:03 <pchampin> gkellogg: we need to prioritize work items, to decide what needs to be done before going to REC, and what can be addressed during maintenance
15:33:18 <pchampin> ... I think this one can fall in the 2nd category
15:34:16 <pchampin> niklasl: I think those additional term be added in the RDF vocabulary
15:34:51 <pchampin> ... this could be done in the coming months, even without publishing the unstar algorithm now.
15:35:09 <pchampin> AndyS: we could start a wiki page with the terms we are considering adding.
15:35:21 <pchampin> ... Coming up with text for their description is going to take some work.
15:35:23 <pchampin> q+
15:35:35 <Souri> q+ to say that picking one of these should be a prioritized: 1) rdf:reifies only, vs. 2) rdf:reifies + rdf:Reification property class, vs. 3) rdf:reifies + rdfs:states
15:35:41 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:36:05 <gkellogg> ack pchampin
15:37:18 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
15:37:22 <Souri> present+
15:37:25 <enrico> ack souri
15:37:25 <Zakim> Souri, you wanted to say that picking one of these should be a prioritized: 1) rdf:reifies only, vs. 2) rdf:reifies + rdf:Reification property class, vs. 3) rdf:reifies +
15:37:28 <Zakim> ... rdfs:states
15:37:28 <pchampin> pchampin: discussing the vocabulary is too coupled to discussing the algorithm in my view.
15:38:32 <pchampin> Souri: we need to make a critical decision about whether we are going to use rdf:reifies only, or rdf:reifies + other reification properties, or rdf:reifies + rdfs:stats.
15:38:42 <pchampin> ... This should be a priority item.
15:38:54 <pchampin> enrico: yes, this was the other topic for today :)
15:38:58 <Souri> s/other reification/rdf:reificationProperty/
15:39:02 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:39:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/18-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
15:39:58 <pchampin> RRSAgent, bye
15:39:58 <RRSAgent> I see no action items