00:15:21 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
00:33:28 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
00:52:33 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
01:10:24 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
01:18:40 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
01:44:12 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
02:00:44 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
02:09:05 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
02:32:53 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
02:49:47 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
03:14:14 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
03:31:40 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
04:03:19 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
04:22:15 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
04:40:03 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
05:02:11 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
05:20:21 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
05:31:15 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
05:47:52 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
06:00:55 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
06:13:24 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
06:24:20 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
06:48:53 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
07:00:44 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
08:04:42 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
08:21:15 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
08:34:44 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
08:49:48 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
09:11:34 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
09:32:54 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
09:49:58 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
10:05:12 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
10:21:20 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
10:40:08 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
11:01:58 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
11:18:30 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
11:39:54 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
11:58:35 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
12:22:06 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
12:40:01 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
12:58:01 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
13:07:08 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
13:18:06 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
13:38:00 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
13:55:52 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
14:53:05 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
14:54:54 <AndyS> AndyS has changed the topic to: RDF-star SemanticsTF -- 2025-01-10 -- Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/59c97770-65f5-4c46-9d03-86fb61ff2bbc/20250110T100000/
14:55:23 <AndyS> zakim, this is RDF-star SemanticsTF
14:55:23 <Zakim> got it, AndyS
14:55:42 <AndyS> rrsagent, clear agenda
14:55:42 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'clear agenda', AndyS.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:57:16 <AndyS> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:57:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/10-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS
14:58:08 <AndyS> rrsagent, Meeting: RDF-star SemanticsTF
14:58:08 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'Meeting: RDF-star SemanticsTF', AndyS.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:58:36 <AndyS> Meeting: RDF-star SemanticsTF
14:58:47 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
14:59:27 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
15:00:13 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:00:21 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
15:00:31 <AndyS> zakim, clear the agenda
15:00:31 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:01:11 <AndyS> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/10-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS
15:01:19 <AndyS> present+
15:01:20 <niklasl> present+
15:04:19 <tl> present+
15:05:08 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
15:05:15 <doerthe> present+
15:05:36 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
15:05:43 <enrico> present+
15:06:01 <pfps> present+
15:07:23 <doerthe> q+
15:07:44 <pchampin> present+
15:07:45 <enrico> ack doerthe
15:07:49 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22liberal-baseline%22
15:08:48 <niklasl> q+
15:08:50 <AndyS> q+
15:08:55 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:09:52 <pchampin> q+
15:10:13 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
15:10:29 <AndyS> scribe+
15:10:38 <AndyS> enrico: IR x IP x IR => IR x (IR U IP) x IR
15:11:12 <AndyS> pfps: Everything in semantics semantics needs to be (IR U IP)
15:11:39 <niklasl> q?
15:11:46 <AndyS> enrico: IR x IP x IR => (IR U IP) x (IR U IP) x (IR U IP)
15:12:12 <tl> s/semantics semantics /simple semantics
15:12:43 <AndyS> enrico: tripleStructure is a 3-tuple of RDF terms.
15:13:38 <niklasl> q+
15:16:02 <pchampin> scribe+
15:16:28 <niklasl> +1 re. name of abstract syntax
15:16:55 <TallTed> present+
15:17:05 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
15:17:10 <enrico> present+
15:17:17 <enrico> q?
15:17:37 <pchampin> AndyS: there is a problem with the name "abstract syntax" in the wiki page about liberal semantics
15:18:00 <pchampin> ... this is different from the abstract syntax defined in rdf-concepts, and the relation should be clarified
15:18:09 <gkellogg> q+
15:18:14 <pchampin> scribe-
15:19:04 <niklasl> Just use symmetric RDF (amended with bnodes allowed in predicate position).
15:20:20 <pchampin> enrico: the abstract syntax in the wiki page defines things that are not in RDF Concepts, which we need to define the semantics
15:20:33 <pchampin> ... for me the reference is the wiki page, the RDF Concept document should be aligned afterwards
15:20:54 <niklasl> The abstract syntax is for RDF graphs. RDF graph data model?
15:21:08 <pchampin> AndyS: RDF Concepts defines a "data model" more than an "abstract syntax", but that ship has sailed
15:22:02 <AndyS> ack AndyS
15:22:07 <AndyS> scribe:
15:22:11 <AndyS> scribe+
15:22:15 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:22:31 <niklasl> q-
15:22:33 <niklasl> q+
15:22:46 <pfps> it appears to me that the "abstract syntax" in the liberal baseline is the same as "RDF Graphs" in Concepts
15:23:07 <AndyS> pchampin: wiki "abstract syntax" is reformulation of RDF Concepts data model/abstract  syntax
15:23:50 <AndyS> ... modulo triple terms in the subject position and renaming, they align.
15:24:28 <AndyS> enrico: can't vote next week on the document (which? - scribe)
15:25:00 <enrico> ack gkellogg
15:25:02 <AndyS> ... need time to work on the concepts document
15:25:33 <AndyS> gkellogg: Don't see we have agreed on subject/triple terms yet
15:25:34 <tl> s/can't vote next week on the document (which? - scribe)/can't vote next week on the concept document
15:26:00 <AndyS> ... maybe symmetric for the liberal baseline.
15:26:13 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:27:01 <AndyS> ... if the RDF data model has literals/triple terms in the subject position then users expect this in the concrete syntaxes.
15:27:09 <pchampin> I like the idea of defining the semantics on the symetric abstract syntax, but that would need to the symetric abstract syntax to be normative... to we want that?
15:27:18 <pchampin> q+
15:27:21 <enrico> q+
15:27:27 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:28:00 <AndyS> Possibility -- make it normative in RDF semantics. (also - the bnodes as predicates corner case)
15:28:52 <AndyS> pchampin: c.f. social meaning of IRIs and formal semantics for IRIs
15:29:07 <niklasl> q?
15:29:13 <niklasl> q+
15:30:03 <niklasl> I am more bothered by the disconnect.
15:32:56 <AndyS> Maybe -- wiki "abstract syntax" -> "semantics data model" or "semantics abstract syntax " or ?
15:34:22 <niklasl> in the "real world", not the *real* world. The model.
15:34:54 <niklasl> (better: the domain of discourse)
15:35:31 <pchampin> q+
15:35:37 <enrico> ack enrico
15:35:39 <AndyS> ack enrico
15:35:49 <AndyS> ack niklasl
15:36:18 <tl> q+
15:38:56 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:38:56 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/01/16-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:38:56 <TallTed> i|agenda cleared|agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/59c97770-65f5-4c46-9d03-86fb61ff2bbc/20250110T100000/ |
15:38:56 <TallTed> i|agenda cleared|topic: discussion on metamodeling semantics/entailments for the liberal baseline |
15:39:01 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:39:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/10-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:39:42 <niklasl> Too weak.
15:40:14 <AndyS> topic: simple semantics
15:41:09 <enrico> q+
15:41:23 <niklasl> You can build multiple worlds within one world. It just requires more blank nodes.
15:41:47 <TallTed> RRSAgent, pointer?
15:41:47 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2025/01/10-rdf-star-irc#T15-41-47
15:42:52 <niklasl> The social contract is imperative for interoperatbility.
15:43:06 <niklasl> s/interoperatbility/interoperability/
15:43:11 <enrico> ack tl
15:45:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/10-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:45:46 <tl> @niklasl e=mc^2 is a proposition, and may also stand in for a whole theory
15:46:19 <niklasl> "abstract graph syntax" and "abstract model syntax" ?
15:47:12 <AndyS> q?
15:47:17 <AndyS> ack enrico
15:47:40 <AndyS> q+
15:47:50 <pchampin> q+
15:48:37 <enrico> ack andys
15:50:15 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:50:15 <niklasl> +1 for the "KR stuff" being in introduction in semantics; perhaps concepts could reference it though?
15:50:22 <pfps> q+ to ask about what we will propose to vote on next week
15:50:33 <enrico> q+
15:50:47 <pfps> Ooops, the syntax in the liberal baseline does allow triple terms in subject position.
15:54:17 <enrico> ofc, pfps
15:54:29 <AndyS> ack pfps
15:54:29 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask about what we will propose to vote on next week
15:54:31 <enrico> ack pfps
15:55:58 <niklasl> +100
15:56:39 <pchampin> q+
15:56:45 <pchampin> q-
15:56:51 <doerthe> q+
15:57:19 <niklasl> Yes, in a universe where properties are not resources, no triple can describe them.
15:58:31 <niklasl> Making a statement is putting a triple into a graph. That encodes the meaning that the proposition is true in the domain of discourse (described by the graph).
15:58:36 <pchampin> q+
15:58:46 <doerthe> then I can't assert it, but I don't see the problem
16:00:51 <niklasl> RDF semantic condition one: x is in IP if and only if <x, I(rdf:Property)> is in IEXT(I(rdf:type))
16:02:38 <pchampin> x is in IP if and only if <x, I(rdf:Property)> is in IEXT(I(rdf:type))
16:02:55 <pchampin> since IEXT \subseteq IRxIR, therefore x \in IR
16:03:17 <niklasl> Further emphasized in RDFS of course rdf:Property rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource .  :)
16:04:37 <enrico> ack enrico
16:04:44 <enrico> ack doerthe
16:04:53 <niklasl> :r rdf:reifies <<( rdfs:Resource rdfs:Resource rdfs:Resource )>> . # :/
16:05:04 <niklasl> q+
16:05:36 <pfps> There is nothing in the normative parts of RDF Concepts that requires that the second element of a triple is a property.
16:06:03 <enrico> q+
16:06:20 <niklasl> q-
16:06:22 <pfps> From Concepts: "Asserting an RDF triple says that some relationship, indicated by the predicate, holds between the resources denoted by the subject and object. This statement corresponding to an RDF triple is known as an RDF statement. The predicate itself is an IRI and denotes a property, that is, a resource that can be thought of as a binary relation."
16:06:40 <pfps> So it is only when a triple is asserted that its second element is a property.
16:06:52 <pfps> q+
16:07:00 <enrico> ack pchampin
16:08:23 <doerthe> for the record, I only lean towards Peter's position, but I am fine with both solutions
16:08:51 <AndyS> Concepts quote: <![[
16:08:51 <AndyS> An RDF triple (usually called "triple") is a 3-tuple (s, p, o) with the following characteristics:
16:08:51 <AndyS> * s is an IRI or a blank node.
16:08:51 <AndyS> * p is an IRI.
16:08:52 <AndyS> * o is an IRI, a blank node, a literal, or a triple term.
16:08:52 <AndyS> ]]> and RDF 1.1 "An RDF triple consists of three components:"
16:08:53 <tl> q+
16:08:56 <niklasl> A syntactic restriction could even drop the triple containing the "broken" triple term?
16:09:40 <niklasl> I'm prepared to pay that price.
16:10:17 <niklasl> Otherwise we should just add LISP to RDF.
16:10:42 <tl> +1 to adding LISP to RDF
16:11:21 <niklasl> We're even doing it, but a weird three-tuple version of it, rather than *pairs*. Add those,  and enjoy the ensuing computational complexity.
16:11:59 <enrico> ack enrico
16:12:09 <enrico> ack pfps
16:13:27 <enrico> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-concepts/spec/#section-triple-terms-reification
16:13:45 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#resources-and-statements, 2nd paragraph
16:13:55 <niklasl> How could you have a triple just lying around in RDF 1.1?
16:14:31 <enrico> ack tl
16:15:09 <doerthe> it is not about use cases it is about what we have to entail
16:15:16 <enrico> q+
16:15:38 <niklasl> q+
16:15:46 <pfps> Triples just *do* lie around.  They don't have to be in the RDF graph under consideration.  Only triples in the graph get this treatment.
16:16:46 <niklasl> How are the other triples treated?
16:17:11 <pchampin> the use case is talking about triples asserted by someone else, but that someone else is talking (syntactically valid) nonsense
16:17:27 <pchampin> q+
16:17:54 <enrico> ack enrico
16:18:47 <doerthe> q+
16:19:09 <AndyS> ack niklasl
16:19:43 <doerthe> It boils down to one question in my opinion:
16:19:43 <doerthe> :a rdf:reifies <<( :b :c :d )>>
16:19:43 <doerthe> RDF entails
16:19:43 <doerthe> :c rdf:type rdf:Property .
16:19:44 <doerthe> (taken from Peter's mail)
16:19:44 <doerthe> So, what do we want there?
16:20:09 <enrico> ack niklasl
16:20:14 <enrico> ack pchampin
16:22:35 <niklasl> q+
16:22:55 <tl> q+
16:23:31 <AndyS> pfps: suggestion -- wiki page upto (and excluding) "RDF semantics" + note wiki 'abstract syntax' is more liberal than concepts and has no effect
16:25:31 <pchampin> PROPOSAL: apply [liberal baseline](https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22liberal-baseline%22) to rdf-semantics up to "RDF-Semantics", referring to rdf-concepts for abstract syntax
16:26:19 <pfps> +1 for this proposal
16:27:09 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22liberal-baseline%22/3d9339abfd31edcbd0a684f8b9930df7176b80b9
16:27:23 <AndyS> s!https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22liberal-baseline%22/3d9339abfd31edcbd0a684f8b9930df7176b80b9!!
16:27:32 <pfps> +1
16:27:36 <pchampin> PROPOSAL: apply [liberal baseline](https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22liberal-baseline%22/476f00755bddcd85bd468c8dd9ae44c20281297c) to rdf-semantics up to "RDF-Semantics", referring to rdf-concepts for abstract syntax
16:27:43 <pfps> +1
16:28:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/10-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:28:23 <pchampin> +1
16:30:31 <niklasl> +1
16:31:04 <tl> +1
16:31:13 <doerthe> +1
16:31:16 <gkellogg> +1
16:31:47 <TallTed> +1
16:31:51 <AndyS> +0
16:31:52 <enrico> +1
16:32:48 <niklasl> Yes +1 for succinctness.
16:33:02 <pchampin> RESOLVED: apply [liberal baseline](https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22liberal-baseline%22/476f00755bddcd85bd468c8dd9ae44c20281297c) to rdf-semantics up to "RDF-Semantics", referring to rdf-concepts for abstract syntax
16:33:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/10-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:33:53 <AndyS> AndyS: unsure about details of today's conversations by ATM looks good.
16:34:19 <AndyS> s/by ATM/but ATM/
16:34:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/10-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:37:13 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
16:37:18 <AndyS> The URL resolution for the resolution: https://www.w3.org/2025/01/10-rdf-star-minutes.html#7225
16:55:58 <pfps> pfps has left #rdf-star
16:56:15 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:05:29 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:18:46 <TallTed> Zakim, bye
17:18:46 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been ktk, AndyS, eBremer, niklasl, ora, gtw, rubensworks, TallTed, gkellogg, fsasaki, pfps, doerthe, james, AZ, olaf, tl, enrico,
17:18:46 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
17:18:49 <Zakim> ... pchampin
17:18:50 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:18:54 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
17:18:54 <RRSAgent> I see no action items