14:59:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:59:24 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/11/22-rdf-star-irc
14:59:52 <thms> thms has joined #rdf-star
14:59:52 <AndyS> zakim, this is RDF-star
14:59:53 <Zakim> got it, AndyS
15:00:01 <AndyS> zakim, this is RDF-star SemanticTF
15:00:01 <Zakim> got it, AndyS
15:00:07 <AndyS> zakim, this is RDF-star SemanticsTF
15:00:07 <Zakim> got it, AndyS
15:00:24 <AndyS> rrsagent, make logs public
15:00:40 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:00:50 <AndyS> present+
15:01:34 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:01:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/22-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:01:42 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:01:43 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-star Semantics TF
15:01:43 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20241122T100000/
15:01:43 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:01:43 <agendabot> agenda+ open agenda to discuss matters regarding semantics
15:01:43 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:01:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/22-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:01:50 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:02:34 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/11/21-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:02:36 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/12/05-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:03:04 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
15:03:13 <enrico> present+
15:03:25 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
15:04:01 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
15:04:16 <TallTed> chair: enrico
15:04:17 <thms> present+
15:04:18 <thms> q+
15:04:21 <niklasl> present+
15:04:24 <TallTed> present+
15:04:54 <Souri> present+
15:04:56 <AndyS> zakim, who is here?
15:04:56 <Zakim> Present: AndyS, enrico, thms, niklasl, TallTed, Souri
15:04:57 <TallTed> scribe: ad-hoc
15:04:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see Souri, niklasl, enrico, gkellogg, thms, RRSAgent, Zakim, TallTed, timbl_, AndyS, driib5, m2gbot, gb, ktk, csarven, gtw, agendabot, Tpt, rhiaro, pchampin
15:05:01 <TallTed> q?
15:05:09 <william_vw> william_vw has joined #rdf-star
15:05:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/22-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:05:21 <william_vw> present+
15:05:29 <Souri> q+
15:06:07 <pchampin> present+
15:06:12 <niklasl1> niklasl1 has joined #rdf-star
15:07:06 <pchampin> q+
15:07:28 <enrico> ack thms
15:10:25 <enrico> ack Souri
15:10:30 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
15:10:40 <doerthe> present+
15:10:47 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
15:10:58 <pfps> present+
15:11:01 <pfps> q+
15:11:04 <pfps> q+
15:11:06 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22alternative-baseline%22/
15:11:16 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
15:11:20 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
15:11:22 <AndyS> q+
15:11:27 <pfps> present+
15:11:30 <pfps> q+
15:11:31 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:11:33 <pfps> q+ on unstar
15:11:35 <niklasl> present+
15:13:28 <enrico> q+ on subj position and unstar
15:13:34 <enrico> ack pfps
15:13:34 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to comment on unstar
15:14:18 <enrico> ack andys
15:14:41 <pfps> It's unclear to me what role unstar now plays and what "two things" it relates together.
15:14:59 <enrico> ack enrico
15:14:59 <Zakim> enrico, you wanted to comment on subj position and unstar
15:16:21 <niklasl> q+ on unstar information preserving
15:16:24 <pchampin> q+ to propose an alternative definition of information preservation
15:16:48 <AndyS> AndyS: IIRC we are having triple terms in the subject position in the semantics; in the RDF abstract data model (and hence syntaxes) it would be the more restrictive having triple terms only in the object position.
15:17:00 <pfps> There are lots of properties that mappings that do not preserve semantics can have.  One of them is some sort of encoding.  One desirable property of an encoding is some sort of reversability.
15:17:53 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:17:53 <Zakim> niklasl, you wanted to comment on unstar information preserving
15:19:05 <niklasl> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49
15:19:06 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 -> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [needs discussion]
15:19:23 <Souri> Just to be clear regarding triple-term position related decision: Has it been decided if N-Triple for RDF1.2 would allow having triple-term in the subject position?
15:19:41 <AndyS> q+ to ask about where we are re: graph vs dataset (or both)
15:20:36 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:20:36 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to propose an alternative definition of information preservation
15:21:05 <AndyS> To Souri - "decided" is to strong (we have not "resolved") but otherwise, from my "IIRC",  NT would not have triple-terms in the subject position.
15:21:36 <AndyS> s/to strong/too strong/
15:21:50 <enrico> q+ on strongly disagreeing unstar being only about syntax
15:22:12 <enrico> ack andys
15:22:12 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about where we are re: graph vs dataset (or both)
15:22:17 <thms> To Souri: IIRC the poll was about the semantics, but not about the possibility of triple terms in subject position (and neither about some syntaxes)
15:22:54 <pchampin> I was convince by niklasl's argument, as reported by gkellogg
15:23:00 <thms> q+
15:24:22 <AndyS> We are looking at the "graph" flavor of unstar. (I will note that on the issue/PR for the wider audience)
15:25:37 <AndyS> rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:25:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/22-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS
15:25:45 <enrico> ack enrico
15:25:45 <Zakim> enrico, you wanted to comment on strongly disagreeing unstar being only about syntax
15:26:02 <niklasl> q+
15:26:48 <enrico> ack thms
15:27:15 <enrico> q+ on not reusing the rdf old reification vocabulary
15:28:00 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:28:04 <thms> q+
15:28:17 <doerthe> I wonder wether the injectivity of our interpretation function could cause problems, but curious to see the bijection
15:28:49 <niklasl> q+
15:29:20 <enrico> ack enrico
15:29:20 <Zakim> enrico, you wanted to comment on not reusing the rdf old reification vocabulary
15:29:38 <niklasl> I lean towards enrico's point about using dedicated terms for unstarred triple terms
15:29:38 <enrico> ack thms
15:29:44 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:30:34 <enrico> q+
15:31:24 <pchampin> q+
15:31:58 <niklasl> Explicit example of how I see it: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Converting-RDF-1.2-data-to-RDF-1.1
15:32:19 <doerthe> OK, maybe that was my point, so what is the bijection then?
15:32:20 <enrico> ack enrico
15:32:24 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:32:46 <niklasl> q+
15:32:51 <william_vw> unicity = uniqueness?
15:32:54 <enrico> q+
15:34:06 <niklasl> Unless you name a graph with that name?
15:34:30 <AndyS> and for graph-style use of the unstar vocabulary?
15:36:11 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:36:12 <thms> q+
15:38:15 <thms> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114#issuecomment-2389011520
15:38:15 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114 -> Issue 114 Un-star operation to support RDF Dataset Canonicalization? (by niklasl) [needs discussion]
15:38:22 <thms> # a mixed environment
15:38:23 <thms> :r1 rdf:reifies
15:38:23 <thms>     <<( :s :p :o1 )>> ,
15:38:23 <thms>     <<( :s :p :o2 )>> ,
15:38:24 <thms>     [ a rdf:Triple; rdf:subject :s ; rdf:predicate :p ; rdf:object :o3 ] ,
15:38:24 <thms>     [ a rdf:Triple; rdf:subject :s ; rdf:predicate :p ; rdf:object :o4 ] ,
15:38:24 <thms>     :g1 .
15:38:25 <thms> :g1 a rdf:Graph .
15:38:25 <thms> :g1 {
15:38:25 <thms>     :s :p :o5 ,
15:38:26 <thms>           :o6
15:38:26 <thms> }
15:39:26 <niklasl> q+
15:40:03 <enrico> ack enrico
15:40:05 <niklasl> rdf:TripleTerm owl:hasKey (rdf:tripleTermSubject rdf:tripleTermPredicate rdf:tripleTermObject) .
15:40:13 <niklasl> That would fix it?
15:40:26 <pchampin> sameAs is defined on OWL; I think it should be possible to express the axioms on owl that allow us to infer that the two nodes of type TripleTerm are indeed sameAs, no?
15:40:45 <pchampin> using keys?
15:40:50 <niklasl> Yes, I just wrote that. :)
15:42:43 <enrico> r1 rdf:reifies <a b c>. r2 rdf:reifies <d e f>.
15:42:51 <pchampin> thms: for me, the problem is that if you unstar, and then "restar" (inverse of unstar) your graph, it may not round-tripe
15:43:00 <pchampin> s/tripe/trip
15:43:00 <enrico> r1 rdf:reifies _:b1. _:b1 :subject a. _:b1 :predicate b. _:b1 :object c.
15:43:06 <enrico> r2 rdf:reifies _:b2. _:b2 :subject d. _:b2 :predicate e. _:b2 :object f.
15:43:30 <AndyS> r1 rdf:reifies <<(:a :b :c)>>. r2 rdf:reifies <<(:d :e :f )>>.
15:43:30 <enrico> a owl:sameAs d. b owl:sameAs e. c owl:sameAs f.
15:43:45 <enrico> SHOULD ENTAIL
15:43:51 <enrico> _:b1 owl:sameAS _:b2.
15:44:18 <thms> q+
15:44:21 <doerthe> I still dislike the injectivity (but can live with that after the discussion with pfps :) )
15:46:03 <doerthe> q+
15:46:05 <Souri> s/:sameAS/:sameAs/
15:46:07 <enrico> ack thms
15:46:16 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:47:19 <enrico> ack doerthe
15:48:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/22-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:48:18 <thms> could we say that an rdf-star reifier that rdf:reifies only one triple term can be represented as RDF standard reification?
15:48:43 <niklasl> thms: I have en example of that (using OWL)....
15:49:20 <thms> niklasl do you happen to have a link?
15:49:42 <niklasl> It's not easy on the eyes, but: https://gist.github.com/niklasl/69428b043be6f1d33fd45f89cbe52632#file-statement-entailment-ttl
15:49:56 <thms> niklasl :) thanks!
15:50:12 <niklasl> Caveat: not updated to the correct unstarred forms
15:51:06 <thms> q?
15:51:09 <thms> q+
15:52:40 <thms> q-
15:53:10 <doerthe> and for that I tried to make my argument short :(
15:53:25 <niklasl> q+
15:54:48 <AndyS> q+ to ask about whether old-style reification to RDF-star is in fact a different algorithm
15:55:07 <thms> ack niklasl
15:55:50 <enrico> ack andys
15:55:50 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about whether old-style reification to RDF-star is in fact a different algorithm
15:56:27 <thms> q+
15:56:34 <niklasl> q+
15:56:53 <enrico> ack thms
15:57:14 <pchampin> +1 to AndyS, because most old style reifications out there are probably more reifiers than triple terms
15:57:51 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:58:56 <thms> _:r a rdf:Statement ; rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>>
15:59:08 <AndyS> We also have more choice/control of the property names in unstar.
15:59:27 <doerthe> mmm, following your example enrico, I can see that it comes in hand that if I have
15:59:27 <doerthe> r1 rdf:reifies _:b1. _:b1 :subject a. _:b1 :predicate b. _:b1 :object c.
15:59:27 <doerthe> r2 rdf:reifies _:b2. _:b2 :subject d. _:b2 :predicate e. _:b2 :object f.
15:59:27 <doerthe> _:b1 owl:sameAs _:b2:
15:59:28 <doerthe> here, the injectivity comes in handy.  We then have some kind of functional :subejct, :predicate, :object and we are out of our multiple object problem.
15:59:28 <doerthe> I know that this is a counterargument to my position :)
16:01:32 <thms> _:oldstyleReifier rdf:subject [ rdf:subjectOf <<( :s :p :o )>>; ..
16:03:59 <doerthe> I still dislike, yet, I see your point, but I think the triple term could be anything
16:04:09 <thms> i mean this
16:04:09 <thms> _:oldstyleReifier
16:04:09 <thms>     a rdf:Statement ;
16:04:09 <thms>     rdf:subject [ rdf:subjectOfTripleTerm <<( :s :p :o )>> ] ;
16:04:10 <thms>     rdf:predicate [ rdf:predicateOfTripleTerm <<( :s :p :o )>> ] ;
16:04:10 <thms>     rdf:object [ rdf:objectOfTripleTerm <<( :s :p :o )>> ] .
16:04:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/22-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:05:03 <niklasl> q+ on OWL...
16:05:33 <enrico> ack niklasl
16:05:33 <Zakim> niklasl, you wanted to comment on OWL...
16:06:21 <enrico> we have been kicked out!
16:06:37 <Souri> re-join?
16:06:49 <pfps> It's a sign!
16:07:20 <AndyS> AI
16:07:30 <enrico> q?
16:07:47 <pfps> q+ to wonder why OWL matters
16:08:08 <AndyS> q+
16:08:14 <pfps> q-
16:08:47 <niklasl> q+
16:08:47 <enrico> ack pfps
16:08:51 <enrico> ack andy
16:08:53 <doerthe> OK, I think I dislike the whole injectivity because that already has old rdf reification in mind, we see a syntactical triple structure while we could also say that the triple term denotes some resource
16:10:09 <enrico> ack niklasl
16:10:40 <enrico> q+
16:11:40 <enrico> ack enrico
16:13:29 <thms> q+
16:13:57 <thms> q-
16:14:58 <thms> q+
16:16:54 <enrico> ack thms
16:17:20 <doerthe> q+
16:19:04 <enrico> ack doerthe
16:22:36 <thms> q+
16:22:51 <enrico> ack thms
16:24:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/22-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed