15:13:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:13:22 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/12/06-rdf-star-irc
15:14:32 <TallTed> Note that until RRSAgent's arrival, there has been no log ... so present+, meeting:, agenda:, etc., may have to be repeated. (I can't see IRC earlier than 10 past the hour, when I joined.)
15:14:48 <TallTed> present+
15:15:03 <doerthe> fine with that
15:15:10 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-Star Semantics TF
15:15:22 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20241206T100000/
15:15:22 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:15:22 <agendabot> agenda+ the Semantics TF will focus on the pull request "New triple term semantics in the rdf-semantics spec #55" -> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/55 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/55
15:15:24 <doerthe> so, to me, only the rdf:type is open :)
15:15:36 <doerthe> and the subject position of course...
15:15:39 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:15:39 <pchampin> q+ to apologize for misreading the PR
15:15:45 <enrico> ack enrico
15:16:23 <enrico> ack william_vw
15:16:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/06-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:17:27 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/12/05-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:17:27 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/12/11-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:18:34 <enrico> ack doerthe
15:18:40 <niklasl> Occurrences (tokens are a kind of occurrences).
15:19:11 <enrico> q+
15:19:48 <TallTed> present+ doerthe, enrico, william_vw, pchampin, thomas, niklasl, gkellogg, Souri, AndyS
15:20:16 <enrico> q?
15:20:28 <enrico> ack thomas
15:20:28 <Zakim> thomas, you wanted to say that I don't oppose triple terms in subject position anymore
15:21:44 <niklasl> I'd say conflations are a general problem. And not only in RDF. :)
15:23:12 <niklasl> The notion of distinct identity is the cause of those problems. (But without that, we only have fuzzy logic.)
15:23:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/06-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:23:32 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:23:32 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to apologize for misreading the PR
15:23:59 <TallTed> chair: enrico
15:24:11 <TallTed> scribe-
15:26:00 <niklasl> Question of definition: The classes are the sets of properties that (at times / may) point to or from the *edges* in the graph (and not the nodes)?
15:26:05 <enrico> q?
15:26:40 <niklasl> q+
15:27:20 <doerthe> that it looks ugly in the spec ;)
15:28:20 <doerthe> it might not stop there
15:30:37 <enrico> ack enrico
15:30:42 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:32:18 <AndyS> present+
15:32:38 <enrico> q+
15:32:57 <thomas> q+
15:35:13 <enrico> ack enrico
15:36:02 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
15:36:07 <Souri> present+
15:39:53 <doerthe> rdf:StarificationProperty
15:40:19 <niklasl> rdf:TripleTermProperty
15:41:42 <enrico> ack thomas
15:41:59 <doerthe> q+
15:43:36 <niklasl> q+
15:43:41 <pchampin> thomas, you might be interested in https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-dm-20130430/#term-specialization
15:43:43 <william_vw> thomas do you have a link to the Berlin example :-)
15:45:29 <pchampin> q+
15:46:10 <niklasl> We have not been able to make it immediately clear, but we know that it is problematic?
15:46:16 <enrico> q+
15:47:31 <enrico> ack doerthe
15:47:53 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:48:07 <thomas> @william_vw    :Berlin :likedBy :John ; :in :Summer ; :likedBy :Alice ; :in :Winter .
15:48:29 <Souri> The other possibility is to exclude everything except rdf:reifies.
15:49:07 <william_vw> @thomas thanks
15:49:45 <thomas> @Souri ... but then what about rdfs:states ;-) IMO we need more properties than just rd:reifies
15:51:08 <Souri> or rdf:associates, just to be neutral -- :r rdf:associates <<( :s :p :o )>> . It is just association and nothing else.
15:51:31 <Souri> s/just association/just an association/
15:52:00 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:52:55 <Souri> @thomas rdfs:states probably carries too much meaning
15:54:04 <thomas> @pachampin but if it has no meaning then it just states the obvious
15:54:29 <thomas> q+
15:55:46 <Souri> An assembly language (like RDF) can provide just the minimal core support => :r rdf:associates <<( :s :p :o )>> . :r a :Saying . This is as opposed to (in a higher level language): :r :says <<( :s :p :o )>> .
16:00:57 <niklasl> I would be satisfied with that.
16:01:15 <Souri> I like the minimality.
16:01:16 <william_vw> +1
16:01:16 <enrico> ack enrico
16:01:55 <enrico> ack thomas
16:01:58 <pchampin> q+
16:02:58 <enrico> ack pchampin
16:03:01 <enrico> q+
16:03:14 <niklasl> (I did include no use as subject outside of generalized RDF in what I would be satisfied with.)
16:04:38 <gkellogg> q+
16:04:57 <thomas> q+ to propose "rdf:indicates" (which Enrico proposed months ago)
16:06:07 <enrico> ack enrico
16:06:17 <enrico> ack gkellogg
16:06:51 <doerthe> and that was where we started, right?
16:07:21 <enrico> doerthe: ofc
16:07:27 <enrico> ack thomas
16:07:27 <Zakim> thomas, you wanted to propose "rdf:indicates" (which Enrico proposed months ago)
16:08:30 <niklasl> q+
16:08:35 <enrico> Etymology. The term "reification" originates from the combination of the Latin terms res ("thing") and -fication, a suffix related to facere ("to make").
16:08:59 <enrico> ack nikasls
16:09:01 <enrico> ack nikasl
16:09:09 <enrico> ack niklasl
16:10:37 <enrico> Reification is when we make a "thing" (a resource) out from something abstract (a triple term)
16:11:37 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:11:41 <Souri> present+
16:12:22 <thomas> Yes, but in my intuition that somehow seems to imply that the thing exists (or is brought into existance by the reification) but that is not what is happening (at least not with rdf:reifies)
16:13:06 <thomas> s/rdf:reifies)/rdf:reifies as opposed to rdfs:states)
16:15:13 <doerthe> but in my opinion it is not that clear, what the triple term denotes
16:15:41 <doerthe> (and  it is not even important in my opinion )
16:19:20 <thomas> q?
16:19:24 <thomas> q+
16:19:43 <doerthe> "john has four letters" vs. "john loves paul", even without triple term
16:20:40 <enrico> ack thomas
16:22:16 <Souri> :r1 rdf:reifies <<(:john :marries :paula)>> ; a :Photo . :r2 rdf:reifies <<(:john :marries :paula)>> ; a :Event .
16:22:36 <enrico> yes, Souri
16:23:39 <doerthe> I think we should keep things open even if we reify, we do not need to know what the triple term denotes and therefore, I would leave things that open that I would not even add injectivity
16:24:20 <Souri> No.
16:24:27 <enrico> I think we should discuss this injectivity stuff once and for all doerthe
16:24:49 <doerthe> sorry for always bringing it up, the cicero in me ;)
16:24:50 <enrico> 🤺🤺\
16:26:55 <thomas> we shouldn't kill rdf:TripleTerm
16:27:03 <doerthe> q+
16:28:58 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/issues/27 -> Issue 27 Integrating different ontology designs through entailment upon triple terms (by niklasl) [use case]
16:30:47 <enrico> ack doerthr
16:30:53 <enrico> ack doerthe
16:34:51 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:36:01 <william_vw> @niklasl no pun intended, I'm sure
16:36:36 <Souri> Not sure I understand this discussion about appropriateness of injectivity. Can we take this example to explain this? => :r1 rdf:reifies <<(:john :marries :paula)>> ; a :Photo . :r2 rdf:reifies <<(:john :marries :paula)>> ; a :Event .
16:45:22 <niklasl> This, by the way, is why I'm not really comfortable with the type rdf:Triple*Term*. It's not the type of that resource, but of the syntactic structure?
16:46:22 <Souri> Is this what you are saying? Two entities: [SR: Set of Reifiers], [ST: Set of Triple-Terms]. One possibly many-to-many relationship: rdf:reifies that is a subset of SR x ST?
16:50:43 <william_vw> is this the problem - without injectivity, we can have:
16:50:43 <william_vw> r1 --reifies--> RE1
16:50:43 <william_vw>     where RE1 = <<:john :loves :paul>>, <<:mary :loves :paula>>
16:50:43 <william_vw> so, no longer know what r1 is an occurrence of? ...
16:51:03 <niklasl> Yes.
16:51:11 <niklasl> (AFAICS)
16:51:32 <thomas> r1 is then an occurrence of those two triples
16:52:28 <niklasl> Yes. I think ReflexiveProperty came up before as a counter, but the directional aspect is still true (only one implies the other).
16:52:39 <niklasl> SymmetricProperty, sorry.
16:53:14 <Souri> So, with injectivity: <<( :s1 :p1 :o1 )>> owl:sameAs <<( :s2 :p2 :o2 )>> . <= => :s1 owl:sameAs :s2 . :p1 owl:sameAs :p2 . :o1 owl:sameAs :o2 .
16:53:29 <niklasl> Yes.
16:54:52 <william_vw> (the above is also known as a "fan trap" in databases, I believe :-) )
16:55:36 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:55:38 <william_vw> to avoid it, we only need a many-to-one here, no?
16:55:41 <Souri> present+
16:56:02 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:57:11 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:59:09 <Souri> So, can s1-s2, p1-p2, o1-o2 "sameAs" be inferred from the following triples? (I hope not because there will be issues if rdf:reifies was used in one-to-many manner here.) => :r1 owl:sameAs :r2 . :r1 rdf:reifies <<( :s1 :p1 :o1 )>> . :r2 rdf:reifies << :s2 :p2 :o2 )>> .
17:00:28 <william_vw> @Souri I don't think so, since rdf:reifies is not injective
17:02:04 <TallTed> the more that gets written in IRC, the more I'll know about what is said from here on...
17:03:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/06-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:06:10 <william_vw> From my end, I think I understand enrico's point. Have to drop off.
17:06:13 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
17:18:20 <thomas> "it" doesn't refer to a sentence but to what the sentence describes
17:18:51 <thomas> in our semantics the reifier doesn't refer to what the sentence describes, but to the sentence itself
17:20:14 <niklasl> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tl%C3%B6n,_Uqbar,_Orbis_Tertius
17:21:35 <doerthe> we scared everyone away :D
17:25:59 <thomas> proposition = statement . it can be true or false
17:26:10 <niklasl> +1000 for rdf:Proposition
17:26:14 <thomas> so we're not saying about it's truth value
17:26:39 <thomas> but then we should clarify the distinction to a fact, which we consider a true statement
17:26:39 <niklasl> ... And then.... rdf:PropositionProperty ?
17:31:03 <thomas> F-Logic is cool
17:37:50 <thomas> Enrico: "a triple term denotes a proposition"
17:37:55 <thomas> +1 to that
17:39:43 <niklasl> Works for me. Noting that "An IRI denotes a[ny] resource.", and "A literal denotes .[... a value in the value space of the datatype of the literal]"
17:39:43 <thomas> s/F-Logic is cool/"F-Logic is cool, Common Logic not so much"
17:40:36 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:42:35 <niklasl> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:42:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/06-rdf-star-minutes.html niklasl
17:58:30 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:28:14 <TallTed> Zakim, bye
18:28:14 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been pchampin, thomas, Souri, enrico, gkellogg, niklasl, doerthe, william_vw, TallTed, AndyS
18:28:14 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
18:28:19 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
18:28:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items