01:42:08 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
02:11:04 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
02:28:36 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
14:49:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:49:33 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/01/17-rdf-star-irc
14:49:47 <AndyS> rrsagent, makes log public
14:49:47 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'makes log public', AndyS.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:49:53 <AndyS> rrsagent, makes logs public
14:49:53 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'makes logs public', AndyS.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:49:57 <AndyS> rrsagent, make logs public
14:50:12 <AndyS> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:50:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/17-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS
14:58:26 <thomas> thomas has joined #rdf-star
15:00:17 <niklasl> present+
15:00:43 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
15:00:53 <pfps> present+
15:01:04 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
15:01:11 <enrico> present+
15:01:57 <niklasl> A thought: https://gist.github.com/niklasl/3e8f972b9c1b5974982836d94b818474
15:02:10 <AndyS> present+
15:02:24 <thomas> present+
15:02:39 <pfps> present+
15:03:39 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
15:03:45 <doerthe> present+
15:04:15 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
15:04:22 <Souri> present+
15:04:23 <pfps> q+
15:04:26 <pchampin> present+
15:05:51 <pchampin> q+
15:09:48 <AndyS> q+
15:10:21 <AndyS> ack pfps
15:10:45 <AndyS> ack pchampin
15:11:00 <thomas> q+ to say that we need to talk about triple terms in subject position
15:11:08 <doerthe> what about  naming it NewClass as a class for now and postpone the name discussion?
15:11:34 <niklasl> q+
15:14:06 <AndyS> ack AndyS
15:15:02 <pchampin> q+
15:15:10 <doerthe> Just as a note: we need to change rdfs14 as well
15:15:14 <pchampin> q-
15:15:26 <pchampin> q+ to question whether RDF 1.1 used "statement" consistently
15:16:32 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
15:17:45 <AndyS> ack thomas
15:17:45 <Zakim> thomas, you wanted to say that we need to talk about triple terms in subject position
15:18:14 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-rdf-statement
15:18:20 <doerthe> q+ to mention that I see that proposition (or whatever we name it) is very similar to property
15:19:06 <enrico> q+
15:19:35 <niklasl> Proposition is minutely more precise in the "logic community", I think, just because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition I think we only *need* to not have semantic drift of "proposition" in the docs. Statement is used mostly as "proposition", but sometimes as "the act of assertion", and sometimes "when made true" (to wobbly paraphrase
15:19:35 <niklasl> it).
15:19:38 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:20:13 <pfps> Since at least 1.1, an RDF statement is, in essence, the assertion of an RDF triple.
15:20:13 <pfps> "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."
15:21:14 <niklasl> https://gist.github.com/niklasl/3e8f972b9c1b5974982836d94b818474
15:22:31 <pfps> What needs to be changed, I think, is "A triple term is not necessarily asserted, allowing statements to be made about other statements that may not be asserted within an RDF graph."
15:22:47 <thomas> q?
15:22:53 <pfps> This uses "statement" as something that is not an RDF statement.
15:23:05 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:23:05 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to question whether RDF 1.1 used "statement" consistently
15:25:20 <pfps> So the problem is with rdf:Statement?
15:25:42 <niklasl> It's certainly made worse because of that.
15:25:58 <enrico> ack doerthe
15:25:58 <Zakim> doerthe, you wanted to mention that I see that proposition (or whatever we name it) is very similar to property
15:26:27 <thomas>                              type                        occurrence
15:26:27 <thomas> asserted	             triple                        reifier
15:26:27 <thomas> not asserted	     rdfs:Proposition	      rdf:Statement
15:26:27 <thomas>                              triple term
15:27:04 <niklasl> "Statement in the graph [which encodes the world]" is an obvious "map as the territory" fallacy though? An rdf:Statement may be in the graph, as the abstract encoding *in* the world. That is a reifier (specifically a token, adequately typed rdf:Statement).
15:27:15 <enrico> ack enrico
15:27:38 <thomas> oups, what i just posted is wrong, a reifier is not asserted
15:28:28 <pchampin> enrico no, because the instances of rdf:Statement are much more like reifiers than like triple terms
15:28:36 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
15:28:44 <doerthe> present+
15:28:47 <niklasl> "stated propositions"
15:28:53 <doerthe> q+
15:29:06 <niklasl> (encoded by "triples in graphs")
15:29:47 <enrico> ack doerthe
15:31:20 <niklasl> q+
15:33:06 <thomas> q+
15:33:19 <niklasl> interpretation        ::= fact*    # "stated proposition", that which "holds in the world"
15:33:19 <niklasl> fact                  ::= proposition
15:33:19 <niklasl> proposition           ::= resource property resource
15:33:19 <niklasl> resource              ::= literal value | proposition | other entity
15:35:55 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:35:57 <enrico> q+
15:37:25 <enrico> axiomatic rriple rdf:statement rdfs:subclass rdfs:proposition.
15:37:39 <thomas> next try for a matrix:
15:37:39 <thomas>                         type                occurrence
15:37:39 <thomas> asserted          statement      … rdf:type rdfx:Stated
15:37:39 <thomas> not asserted    triple               reifier (almost the same as rdf:Statement)
15:37:41 <thomas> 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.
15:38:34 <thomas> from RDF Concepts 1.1 https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#resources-and-statements
15:39:48 <enrico> 5.3.1 rdf:Statement
15:39:48 <enrico> rdf:Statement is an instance of rdfs:Class. It is intended to represent the class of RDF statements. An RDF statement is the statement made by a token of an RDF triple. The subject of an RDF statement is the instance of rdfs:Resource identified by the subject of the triple. The predicate of an RDF statement is the instance of rdf:Property
15:39:48 <enrico> identified by the predicate of the triple. The object of an RDF statement is the instance of rdfs:Resource identified by the object of the triple. rdf:Statement is in the domain of the properties rdf:predicate, rdf:subject and rdf:object. Different individual rdf:Statement instances may have the same values for their rdf:predicate, rdf:subject and
15:39:48 <enrico> rdf:object properties.
15:40:25 <doerthe> (reading up right now, therefore no reaction yet))
15:40:28 <enrico> ack thomas
15:42:03 <niklasl> "asserting a triple" implies that not all triples are asserted?
15:42:57 <niklasl> Not "is a triple", "denoted by a triple [term]".
15:43:03 <doerthe> OK, enrico, I have to think, but I think I am fine with your idea... when we discussed, I had not re-read the current definitions of rdf:Statement
15:43:39 <enrico> Option 1: keep rdfs:Proposition, and add the axiomatic triple: rdf:Statement rdfs:subclass rdfs:Proposition.
15:43:45 <enrico> option 2: replace rdfs:proposition with rdf:Statement.
15:43:56 <enrico> I'd be in favour of option 2, just to be quick.
15:44:26 <niklasl> -1 for option 2, because it conflates the two
15:44:53 <doerthe> q+
15:44:54 <AndyS> I lean towards option 1. Legacy rdf:Statement, use "statement" (natural language)
15:45:44 <doerthe> that is an advantage :D
15:46:58 <niklasl> I tend to think so to (an advantage) since it is the meaning itself, not its *role* as constituting truth ("the world").
15:47:20 <pfps> I like option 1-, i.e., no axiomatic triple
15:47:35 <Souri> I'd argue for ==> Triple = RDF Statement = Asserted Propositions. Also, rdf:Reifier owl:equivalentClass rdf:Statement . "Triple Structure" refers to a way of expressing an RDF proposition.
15:47:39 <Souri> q+
15:48:13 <AndyS> ack enrico
15:48:22 <enrico> ack enrico
15:49:29 <niklasl> I'm also not sure about the axiomatic triple (yet), so rather option 1- as @pfps said.
15:51:23 <enrico> ack doerthe
15:51:32 <pfps> A problem with using rdf:subject is that its domain is rdf:Statement
15:51:50 <niklasl> See also https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/61
15:51:50 <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) [spec:editorial]
15:51:54 <doerthe> that was my quaetion, pfps
15:51:59 <doerthe> question
15:52:20 <doerthe> is it a problem? (I think it is but did not think it through)
15:53:31 <niklasl> q+
15:53:50 <enrico> ack souri
15:55:46 <thomas> q+
15:56:53 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:56:56 <enrico> q+
15:57:02 <enrico> ack thomas
16:00:02 <enrico> ack enrico
16:00:29 <enrico> axiomatic triple: rdf:Statement rdfs:subclass rdfs:Proposition .
16:01:46 <thomas> +1 to that (although i need to see a complete proposal, covering all aspects,  to be sure)
16:01:47 <niklasl> I am *very* cautiously positive to that. But it's a "would like to", not sure if it actually fully clarifies.
16:02:43 <Souri> s/ rdfs:subclass / rdfs:subClassOf /
16:05:16 <doerthe> q+
16:05:22 <thomas> q+
16:05:24 <enrico> ack doerthe
16:08:56 <niklasl> q+
16:09:21 <enrico> ack thomas
16:10:08 <enrico> q+ to argue why rdf:reifies is weaker within triple terms
16:10:27 <enrico> ack niklasl
16:11:05 <enrico> ack enrico
16:11:05 <Zakim> enrico, you wanted to argue why rdf:reifies is weaker within triple terms
16:14:20 <Souri> q+ to ask ==> Since we already have rdf:Property, why not use rdf:Proposition (instead of rdfs:Proposition)?
16:14:38 <niklasl> To be clear for the minutes, we are settled on rdfs:Proposition (RDF Schema namespace), so https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/pull/31 needs to be updated once it's reopened (it says it's temporarily closed).
16:14:39 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/pull/31 -> CLOSED Pull Request 31 add rdf:dirLangString, rdf:reifies, rdf:Proposition, and modify rdf:JSON (by domel) [spec:substantive]
16:14:42 <enrico> ack souri
16:14:42 <Zakim> Souri, you wanted to ask ==> Since we already have rdf:Property, why not use rdf:Proposition (instead of rdfs:Proposition)?
16:14:47 <enrico> ack souri
16:15:12 <doerthe> ah, that would be a fix :)
16:15:14 <AndyS> q+
16:15:33 <niklasl> I'm fine with it mostly because of rdfs:Resource and rdfs:Literal
16:16:30 <enrico> ack andys
16:18:07 <AndyS> q+
16:19:02 <AndyS> q+ to ask that we accept the current state of the baseline and list the issues. i.e. accept the general direction.
16:19:19 <thomas> +1  to that
16:22:47 <doerthe> I like the idea to make it total
16:22:51 <pfps> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/69
16:22:52 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/69 -> Issue 69 modification to new semantics to permit entailment that every triple term is a proposition (by pfps)
16:24:12 <pfps> 1/ Triple terms in subject position is not very important in Semantics.
16:24:12 <pfps> The difference to Semantics is very much like the situation with respect to literals in subject position.
16:24:12 <pfps> The way forward, I think, is for the WG to decide which way to go and then Semantics can be easily fixed up.
16:24:12 <pfps> 2/ Semantics uses rdfs:Proposition as the type of triple terms.
16:24:15 <pfps> The name is arbitrary and could be changed to any "fresh" name with no other consequences.
16:24:19 <pfps> Some wording in Concepts concerning "statement" should be modified.
16:24:22 <pfps> The confounding fact is that rdf:Statement already exists and can't be changed.
16:24:26 <pfps> 3/ RDF Semantics has RE being a partial mapping from IR x IP x IR into IR.
16:24:29 <pfps> This causes problems with entailment and needs to be fixed.
16:24:32 <pfps> 4/ Entailment rules need to be adjusted.
16:24:44 <enrico> (3) u=is fixed in the new version
16:25:53 <AndyS> 4/ Entailment rules in RDF Semantics need to be adjusted to align with the baseline rules.
16:26:32 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:26:48 <doerthe> present+
16:27:18 <AndyS> 2 is resolved (today) and can be removed.
16:29:25 <AndyS> DRAFT: Accept: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22liberal-baseline%22/eaa9863a2a21623fd94a34fc8e7484e596476460 with the list above (1,3,4) added as notes.
16:33:02 <niklasl> I have a hard time following the total RE argument. Does it also mean that: If {  _:r1 rdf:reifies <<(:a :b :c)>> . :a owl:sameAs :A . } + (some entailment regime) => { _:r1 rdf:reifies <<(:A :b :c)>> . } mean that <<(:A :b :c)>> a rdfs:Proposition must be true in the LHS...?
16:37:13 <niklasl> The domain of RE cannot be "papered over", and may lead to broken RDF or RDFS semantics?
16:38:09 <pfps> If RE is partial then you lose observable consequences.
16:38:35 <pfps> If RE is total on IR x IP x IR I'm not sure what happens.
16:39:07 <pfps> You do lose some stuff in the simple semantics, but it might all be non-observable.
16:44:40 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:47:43 <niklasl> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/69
16:47:43 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/69 -> Issue 69 modification to new semantics to permit entailment that every triple term is a proposition (by pfps)
16:48:31 <niklasl> Perhaps solvable by A) dropping rdfs:Proposition, B) IP as subset of IR, maybe C)  rdf(s):Proposition not a subclass of rdfs:Resource.
16:48:45 <AndyS> Blocking: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/69
16:50:13 <niklasl> IP must be equal to IR even for simple semantics for e.g. <<(:a rdfs:subPropertyOf :b)>> ?
16:52:25 <pfps> pfps has left #rdf-star
16:54:30 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
16:54:40 <AndyS> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:54:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/17-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS
16:55:19 <AndyS> zakim, please leave
16:55:19 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been niklasl, pfps, enrico, AndyS, thomas, doerthe, Souri, pchampin
16:55:19 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
16:55:29 <AndyS> rrsagent, please leave
16:55:29 <RRSAgent> I see no action items