14:59:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:59:15 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/12/13-rdf-star-irc
14:59:32 <AndyS> zakim, this is RDF-Star SemanticsTF
14:59:32 <Zakim> got it, AndyS
14:59:47 <AndyS> rrsagent, make logs public
15:00:55 <AndyS> zakim, agenda https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20241213T100000/
15:00:55 <Zakim> I don't understand you, AndyS
15:01:00 <AndyS> zakim, help
15:01:00 <Zakim> Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more detailed help.
15:01:02 <Zakim> Some of the commands I know are:
15:01:02 <Zakim>  xxx is yyy       - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx
15:01:02 <Zakim>                     if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted
15:01:02 <Zakim>  xxx may be yyy   - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx
15:01:02 <Zakim>  I am xxx         - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx
15:01:04 <Zakim>  xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group
15:01:04 <Zakim>  xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx
15:01:04 <Zakim>  who's here?      - lists the participants on the phone
15:01:04 <Zakim>  who's muted?     - lists the participants who are muted
15:01:04 <Zakim>  mute xxx         - mutes party xxx (like pressing 61#)
15:01:04 <Zakim>  unmute xxx       - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61#
15:01:05 <Zakim>  is xxx here?     - reports whether a party named like xxx is present
15:01:05 <Zakim>  list conferences - reports the active conferences
15:01:05 <Zakim>  this is xxx      - associates this channel with conference xxx
15:01:05 <Zakim>  excuse us        - disconnects from the irc channel
15:01:05 <Zakim> I last learned something new on $Date: 2020/12/31 21:20:53 $
15:01:20 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
15:01:44 <enrico> present+
15:01:46 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-star Semantics TF
15:01:48 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20241213T100000/
15:01:48 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:01:48 <agendabot> agenda+ Continuing the discussion of the "liberal baseline" introduced last week.
15:01:50 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6d0cd306-0be8-4267-865a-6272cc8d9da4/20241213T100000/
15:01:50 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:01:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Continuing the discussion of the "liberal baseline" introduced last week.
15:01:54 <AndyS> present+
15:01:59 <tl> present+
15:02:14 <TallTed> present+
15:02:32 <AndyS> agenda?
15:02:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/13-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:03:14 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
15:03:39 <AndyS> scribe-
15:03:42 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/12/12-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:03:44 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/12/19-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:03:48 <AndyS> q+
15:04:41 <niklasl> Treat rdf:reifies no more and no less specially than rdf:type?
15:04:52 <william_vw> william_vw has joined #rdf-star
15:04:59 <niklasl> q+
15:05:38 <tl> q+
15:05:54 <enrico> ack andys
15:06:05 <william_vw> present+
15:06:10 <pchampin> q+
15:06:31 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:07:16 <william_vw> present+
15:07:27 <TallTed> chair: enrico
15:07:27 <TallTed> scribe-
15:07:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/13-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:07:40 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
15:07:46 <pfps> indeed, the question is what triple terms denote
15:08:37 <pfps> if they denote some arbitrary resourse then there is no "problem" with literals sitting in places where a triple term normally goes
15:08:53 <TallTed> present+ pfps, pchampin, niklasl
15:09:02 <enrico> ack tl
15:09:05 <niklasl> So, what do triple terms denote?
15:09:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/13-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:09:39 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:09:46 <enrico> q+
15:09:54 <TallTed> present+ gkellogg
15:09:54 <TallTed> scribe-
15:10:05 <pfps> if, on the other hand, a triple term denotes some a element of some datatype then a literal in the object position is likely a contradiction
15:10:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/13-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:10:16 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:10:55 <pfps> q+
15:11:30 <niklasl> "<s> <p> <o>"^^rdf:TripleTerm 🤔
15:11:38 <pfps> q-
15:13:22 <niklasl> q+
15:15:01 <pfps> The proposed  semantics in PR #55 appears to make triple terms be arbitrary resources so there is no problem with literals in the place of triple terms.
15:15:02 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/55 -> Action 55 setup echidna in all GH repository (on pchampin) due 27 Apr 2023
15:15:03 <niklasl> An abstract proposition is a resource.
15:15:25 <niklasl> An IRI does not necessarily denote an IRI....
15:17:20 <tl> q+
15:17:27 <enrico> ack enrico
15:17:32 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:18:20 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
15:18:47 <Souri> present+
15:19:34 <pchampin> q+
15:20:02 <pchampin> +1 to what niklasl said
15:21:04 <pchampin> the question is: what is the set of images of function RE
15:22:15 <tl> triple term are resources and denote propositions
15:23:02 <enrico> q?
15:23:06 <enrico> ack tl
15:23:35 <pfps> triple terms are syntactic elements, which are only incidentally resources
15:23:51 <pfps> just like IRIs are syntactic elements, and only incidentally resources
15:23:57 <niklasl> q+
15:24:48 <niklasl> In the interpretation: "Is this proposition true?" => In the syntax: "Is this triple in the graph?"
15:25:33 <pfps> what is the difference between a triple term and an IRI here?
15:26:22 <william_vw> so will all Propositions be Resources as well?
15:26:31 <pfps> what is the difference between a triple term and a literal here?
15:26:36 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:26:42 <enrico> q+
15:28:07 <niklasl> I *think* range of rdf:reifies as rdf:Proposition makes sense (understanding that e.g. tl sees a potential for it to mean something wider). Just as rdf:type rdfs:range rdfs:Class .
15:28:52 <pfps> everything is a resource (well not exactly in simple semantics, but definitely in RDF semantics)
15:29:05 <niklasl> +1 to pchampin, they are all triples, used as terms and/or asserted.
15:29:07 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:31:20 <enrico> ack enrico
15:31:38 <pchampin> q+ to talk abour rdf:Literal
15:32:20 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:32:20 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to talk abour rdf:Literal
15:32:32 <niklasl> Literals are almost as weird as named graphs. Literals are "a pair of their values and a datatype"... (I think it is written somewhere?)
15:32:58 <enrico> q+
15:33:49 <tl> i would rather treat triple terms as IRIs than as literals, because they do not denote "themselves" but something referenced by their constituents
15:33:59 <niklasl> From semantics: RDF literals combine a string and an IRI identifing a datatype.
15:34:20 <niklasl> I presume that refers to the syntactic structure though.
15:34:35 <niklasl> q+
15:34:39 <tl> q+
15:34:46 <pchampin> that's ok with me
15:34:58 <niklasl> Me too.
15:35:21 <pchampin> just like :john a "Person" means that "Person" is a class
15:35:25 <enrico> ack enrico
15:35:32 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:36:10 <AndyS> so how to record this? "A triple term denotes ????" (text needed for the docs)
15:36:13 <enrico> q+
15:36:18 <pchampin> I missed the pattern too :)
15:36:23 <enrico> ack tl
15:37:01 <enrico> ack enrico
15:37:28 <niklasl> "A triple terms denote a proposition". A resource in the class (with the rdf:type) rdfs:Proposition.
15:37:42 <tl> q+
15:37:42 <pchampin> q+ also, it allows people to create a property with range rdf:Proposition
15:37:48 <pchampin> q-
15:38:53 <tl> niklasl "A triple terms denote a proposition (not necessarily asserted in a graph)".
15:39:25 <niklasl> +1 for rdfs:Proposition (we have rdfs:Literal there; even rdfs:Resource). Some things in rdf: are defined using rdfs:.
15:39:26 <AndyS> ... and what is a proposition? (for the rdfs:label/comment!)
15:39:28 <pchampin> finally found it: https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-semantics/#rdfs_literal_note -> the section explaining that "The class rdfs:Literal is not the class of literals, but rather that of literal values"
15:40:33 <enrico> q?
15:40:36 <enrico> ack tl
15:41:40 <pfps> q+ to comment on numeral vs number
15:42:06 <william_vw> q+
15:42:06 <niklasl> The property carries all the meaning if it is defined with a clear rdfs:range here. (I am more neutral about its domain.)
15:42:16 <enrico> ack pfps
15:42:16 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to comment on numeral vs number
15:43:20 <pchampin> rdf:string ??
15:43:22 <enrico> q+
15:43:24 <AndyS> q+
15:43:51 <pfps> if there is an IRI for the value space of triple terms, then it belongs in the rdf namespace just like rdf:string
15:43:56 <niklasl> I think if we say triple terms denote (logical, "atomic", binary, directed) propositions, we are clear they denote "numbers not numerals"?
15:44:18 <niklasl> q+
15:44:19 <pchampin> q+ to suggest a rule for rdf: vs. rdfs:
15:44:37 <pfps> well, a proposition is certainly different from a syntactic thing, so I would say yes
15:45:21 <niklasl> Just because a person is a resource and an apple is a resource, and I am a person, I am not an apple.
15:45:24 <pfps> that's not to say that I think a triple term should be a proposition, as I view propositions as "types", not "tokens"
15:46:02 <pfps> statement is something that can fit on either side, I think, and so is not a mistake in RDF reification
15:46:02 <AndyS> q-
15:46:04 <niklasl> Unless in the interpretation model of a shark, who just consumes me. ;)
15:46:24 <tl> pfps but triple terms represent types, so what's the problem?
15:46:59 <pchampin> +1 pfps, and as triple terms are closer to "types" than "tokens", I think rdf(s):Proposition is a good fit
15:49:10 <pfps>  hmm, I guess I agree with pchampin, that triple terms are closer to "types" because of their uniqueness
15:49:37 <pfps> this makes them different from statements, which are not unique
15:49:48 <tl> exactly
15:50:05 <pchampin> exactly, and a good way to explain the difference between triple terms and old-style reification :)
15:50:32 <tl> yes, but then enter the reifiers :->
15:51:16 <pfps> so I'm OK with using rdf:Proposition as the type for the denotion of triple terms, if such a type is needed
15:51:33 <pfps> that's not to say that there isn't a better name
15:51:58 <pchampin> q?
15:52:29 <enrico> ack william_vw
15:53:03 <enrico> q-
15:53:21 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:53:28 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:53:28 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to suggest a rule for rdf: vs. rdfs:
15:54:00 <Souri> A naive question: Is RDF String a class or just a set of all the string values that can be specified in RDF syntax? What if RDF TripleTerm is (similarly?) just a set of all possible triple-terms allowed in the syntax. And rdf:reifies can only have elements of RDF TripleTerm (set) as its object. Would that allow us to avoid rdfs:domain and
15:54:00 <Souri> rdfs:range in RDF (which IMO adds complexity to RDF).
15:54:01 <enrico> q+
15:55:40 <niklasl> Aside: Is rdfs:Proposition a subclass of xsd:boolean (or vice versa)? (Mostly but not entirely joking.)
15:55:55 <pchampin> no no no no! 8-O
15:55:57 <pchampin> :)
15:56:35 <niklasl> No ;)
15:56:36 <pchampin> as pfps emphasized, a proposition is true or false *in a context*... so not a subclass of boolean
15:57:51 <enrico> q?
15:58:07 <pchampin> q+
15:58:15 <enrico> ack enrico
15:58:20 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:58:42 <william_vw> I'm a bit stunned at your interpretation of triple terms - e.g., they *cannot* be events - I hope that you won't expect people to know all these implicit restraints. They are not as intuitive as you may think ...
15:59:15 <enrico> There is an agreeement that we have to define the range of rdf:reifies to be rdfs:Proposition
16:00:03 <enrico> +1 to leave the domain rdf:reifies unspecified
16:00:04 <niklasl> +1 to pchampin; rdfs:reifies rdfs:range rdfs:Propositon; rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource # Domain best left unspecified
16:00:09 <tl> q+
16:00:22 <pchampin> q+ to respond to william_vw
16:01:32 <niklasl> That this is unintuitive is why we introduced reifiers and why I am very wary about triple terms (but see their effective use for those).
16:02:43 <pchampin> It *can* happen in Turtle, it is just unpleasant to write...
16:02:54 <niklasl> It's hard to skip that step while still introducing triple terms. But I do agree.
16:04:26 <pchampin> william_vw, that's a good summary
16:04:31 <pchampin> IMO
16:04:39 <enrico> q?
16:04:43 <enrico> ack tl
16:04:48 <pchampin> and also because it will come back and bite you (e.g. multiple mariages)
16:04:54 <pchampin> more pragmatically
16:04:56 <tl> q-
16:05:18 <pchampin> q-
16:05:30 <william_vw> thanks @enrico for the answer. sorry for being stunned.
16:07:20 <enrico> So we have: rdf:reifies as a property and rdfs:Proposition as a class (which is the range of rdf:reifies); we do not have rdf:reifier or rdf:TripleTerm.
16:07:37 <tl> q+
16:07:48 <niklasl> +1
16:07:54 <enrico> ack tl
16:07:55 <pchampin> +1
16:07:56 <william_vw> q+
16:08:38 <enrico> ack william_vw
16:09:00 <pchampin> q+
16:09:07 <enrico> ack pchampin
16:10:17 <niklasl> +1 to pchampin, tripe terms denote resources of type rdfs:Proposition
16:11:11 <niklasl> tl see https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/61 regarding rdf:Statement
16:11:12 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/61 -> Issue 61 Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies  (by niklasl)
16:12:34 <tl> q?
16:13:03 <enrico> Another proposal: triple terms are of type rdf:Proposition, and rdf:reifies has range rdf:Proposition
16:13:20 <niklasl> s/tripe terms/triple terms/
16:13:26 <pchampin> s/are of type/denote instances of
16:14:26 <william_vw> that makes a lot more sense to me
16:15:42 <pchampin> +1 to have this constraint in RDF entailment
16:16:18 <enrico> triple terms are of type rdf:Proposition (in RDF semantics), and rdf:reifies has rdfs:range rdf:Proposition (in RDFS semantics)
16:16:48 <william_vw> +1
16:17:10 <pchampin> +1
16:17:12 <enrico> We agree on: triple terms are of rdf:type rdf:Proposition (in RDF semantics), and rdf:reifies has rdfs:range rdf:Proposition (in RDFS semantics)
16:17:14 <tl> +1
16:17:14 <niklasl> +1
16:17:17 <enrico> +1
16:17:18 <gkellogg> +1
16:17:42 <pfps> +0.9
16:20:19 <tl> q+
16:20:25 <enrico> ack tl
16:20:45 <niklasl> q+
16:20:46 <enrico> q+
16:20:57 <enrico> ack niklasl
16:23:02 <pchampin> I have to jump now, sorry -- I'm +0 on introducing rdfs:state, (and -1 on making it the default for the annotation syntax, just in case, but IIUC this is not what is being discussed here)
16:25:05 <tl> q+
16:25:21 <AndyS> ack enrico
16:25:24 <enrico> ack enrico
16:25:25 <AndyS> ack tl
16:25:25 <niklasl> For specific kinds of reifiers, you can use OWL to infer new triples, e.g. : <Alice> :bought <Lenny_the_Lion> from a Purchase reifier: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/issues/27
16:25:26 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/issues/27 -> Issue 27 Integrating different ontology designs through entailment upon triple terms (by niklasl) [use case]
16:25:26 <enrico> ack tl
16:30:04 <AndyS> agenda?
16:33:46 <william_vw> I have to leave - good weekend everyone
16:34:43 <gkellogg> <<( :s :p :o )>> a rdf:Proposition .
16:38:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/13-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:48:44 <AndyS> zakim, please leave us
16:48:45 <Zakim> I don't understand 'please leave us', AndyS
16:48:53 <AndyS> zakim, please leave
16:48:53 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been enrico, AndyS, tl, TallTed, william_vw, pfps, pchampin, niklasl, gkellogg, Souri
16:48:53 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
16:49:05 <AndyS> rrsagent, please leave
16:49:05 <RRSAgent> I see no action items