16:55:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
16:55:10 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/01/30-rdf-star-irc
16:55:28 <ktk> meeting:  RDF-star WG biweekly focused meeting
16:55:36 <ktk> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3f89f9e9-2ddb-4587-8c60-2dfdc927320a/20250130T120000/
16:55:36 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:55:36 <agendabot> agenda+ is rdf:dirLangString a required datatype for RDF entailment? -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/139
16:55:36 <agendabot> agenda+ Nature / role of triples -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/150
16:55:36 <agendabot> agenda+ triple terms in subject position - issues with RDF/XML? -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/138
16:55:38 <agendabot> agenda+ Support for rdf:dirLangString -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-xml/issues/49
16:55:48 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:55:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/30-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
16:55:52 <ktk> RRSAgent, make log public
16:55:56 <ktk> present+
16:56:08 <Dominik_T> present+
16:58:38 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
16:59:08 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:59:26 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
16:59:31 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
17:00:05 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #Rdf-star
17:00:13 <james> james has joined #rdf-star
17:00:17 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:00:33 <pchampin> present+
17:00:40 <fsasaki> present+
17:00:49 <ora> present+
17:00:57 <ora> chair+
17:00:57 <gtw> present+
17:00:57 <Dominik_T> present+
17:00:57 <AndyS> present+
17:01:04 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-star
17:01:11 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
17:01:16 <ktk> regrets+ pfps
17:01:28 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/01/24-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:01:28 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/01/31-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:01:28 <TallTed> present+
17:01:31 <gkellogg> present+
17:01:33 <gkellogg> scribe+
17:01:34 <ktk> regrets+ olaf
17:01:35 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
17:01:35 <niklasl> present+
17:01:44 <doerthe> present+
17:01:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/30-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:01:57 <AZ> present+
17:02:12 <james> present+
17:02:40 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
17:02:50 <Souri> present+
17:02:50 <gkellogg> zakim, open item 1
17:02:50 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- is rdf:dirLangString a required datatype for RDF entailment? -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/139 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:03:01 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
17:03:04 <gkellogg> ora: pfps abstained from the vote
17:03:11 <eBremer> present+
17:03:22 <ora> q?
17:03:32 <AndyS> q+
17:03:46 <AndyS> q-
17:03:50 <pchampin> q+
17:04:04 <tl> q+
17:04:05 <gkellogg> gkellogg: I don't see how RDF could be consistent without such entailment.
17:04:32 <AndyS> q+
17:04:37 <ora> ack pchampin
17:04:38 <tl> q-
17:04:42 <tl> present+
17:04:46 <gkellogg> pchampin: I agree; we must have such entailment.
17:05:06 <gkellogg> ... But, the question is not just do we need semantics, but at which level is the support of semantics required?
17:05:21 <ora> ack AndyS
17:05:27 <gkellogg> ... For me, dirLangString is a core part of the model and should be supported in semantics.
17:05:56 <gkellogg> AndyS: I don't see how we can not do it; langString is in semantics so that it has one meaning which can't be redefined. We need to do the same for dirLangString.
17:06:08 <gkellogg> ... They're called out because of the different lexical space.
17:06:09 <fsasaki> q+
17:06:14 <ora> ack fsasaki
17:06:54 <gkellogg> fsasaki: With regards to CR, developers need to be able to test and report back.
17:07:15 <AndyS> q+
17:07:22 <ora> ack AndyS
17:07:26 <gkellogg> ora: I'm pretty sure we'll hear from implementers if we get this wrong.
17:07:46 <gkellogg> AndyS: Peter's asking about semantics, not if it is in the data model.
17:08:02 <gkellogg> ... Tests will relate to the data model, not the semantics.
17:08:06 <pchampin> q+
17:08:14 <ora> ack pchampin
17:08:42 <gkellogg> pchampin: I think it wasn't so much of a if we put it in semantics, but where.
17:08:59 <gkellogg> ... What makes sense is in the RDF semantics alongside strings, and langString.
17:09:39 <AZ> you should say "in the RDF entailment regime" rather than "in RDF semantics" because the later is whole semantics document
17:09:39 <gkellogg> AndyS: The PR goes through everywhere where langString is mentioned, which is more about data types.
17:09:52 <niklasl> This is the PR https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/64 ?
17:09:53 <gkellogg> ... dirLangString is beside langString.
17:09:53 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/64 -> Pull Request 64 Recognize rdf:dirLangString (by afs) [spec:enhancement]
17:10:45 <gkellogg> ora: to the extent that merging a PR means anything, we could do that, but is that a strong enough statement?
17:10:45 <james> q+
17:10:50 <AndyS> q+
17:10:54 <ora> ack james
17:11:05 <ora> ack AndyS
17:11:09 <gkellogg> james: As I recall, pfps sentiment was that he wanted an explicit statement.
17:11:23 <gkellogg> AndyS: Specifically, to put it in the set of recognized data types.
17:12:00 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
17:12:32 <gkellogg> pchampin: D-entailment defines a set where implementations may differ. "D" must be part of the entailment.
17:12:43 <gkellogg> ... It's not just saying what it means to recognize it, but that it MUST be recognized.
17:13:24 <gkellogg> AndyS: The term is that of a "recognized data type". I asked why langString was there in the first place, and didn't get a good answer.
17:13:37 <gkellogg> ora: Is saying it is recognized, or do we need to mention D-entailment specifically?
17:14:00 <gkellogg> ... "recognized" vs "required".
17:14:11 <fsasaki> q+
17:14:20 <gkellogg> pchampin: Maybe the term is RDF Interpretations.
17:14:24 <ora> ack fsasaki
17:14:59 <pchampin> PROPOSAL: rdf:dirLangString's semantics is defined in RDF-Semantics, and MUST be recognized in RDF interpretations
17:15:07 <gkellogg> +1
17:15:08 <ora> +1
17:15:08 <niklasl> +1
17:15:09 <pchampin> +1
17:15:10 <fsasaki> +1
17:15:14 <eBremer> +1
17:15:15 <Dominik_T> +1
17:15:15 <james> +1
17:15:16 <tl> +1
17:15:17 <gtw> +1
17:15:18 <TallTed> +1
17:15:18 <Tpt> +1
17:15:21 <AndyS> +1
17:15:24 <doerthe> +1
17:15:28 <AZ> +1
17:15:29 <ktk> +1
17:15:50 <Souri> +1
17:15:52 <enrico> +1
17:15:59 <gkellogg> RESOLVED: rdf:dirLangString's semantics is defined in RDF-Semantics, and MUST be recognized in RDF interpretations
17:16:13 <gkellogg> zakim, next item
17:16:13 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Nature / role of triples -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/150 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:17:03 <gkellogg> ktk: We'll time-box this discussion.
17:17:06 <enrico> q?
17:17:08 <enrico> q+
17:17:15 <ora> ack enrico
17:17:33 <gkellogg> enrico: I'm sympathetic with the idea, but wonder what the impact is everywhere?
17:17:50 <pchampin> q+
17:17:51 <gkellogg> ... We can explain this, but when we say "triple", what do we mean?
17:18:14 <gkellogg> ... We say triple terms are asserted, but that's sloppy.
17:18:35 <ora> ack pchampin
17:18:36 <gkellogg> ... We should not change the notion of "triple".
17:19:05 <gkellogg> pchampin: I would say we're not changing the notion of a triple. The only use was to be asserted in a graph.
17:19:14 <enrico> q+
17:19:25 <gkellogg> ... That's my mental model; now we need to be clearer when we talk about a triple where it is used.
17:19:42 <gkellogg> ... When I reviewed RDF Concepts, it didn't seem to need much change.
17:19:57 <tl> q+
17:20:10 <gkellogg> ... The text talks about asserted triples. We need to be clear that a triple in a graph means that the triple is asserted.
17:20:32 <gkellogg> ... There is a discussion of "appears in the graph", which could be moved to concepts later.
17:20:37 <ora> ack enrico
17:20:41 <gkellogg> ... Most of the text should still work.
17:21:10 <ora> ack tl
17:21:12 <gkellogg> enrico: I think some one needs to be responsible for having a pass over the text to put it in order.
17:21:31 <gkellogg> tl: We need a name for the triple term we've introduced.
17:21:58 <gkellogg> ... As far as I say, the spec uses "triple" for the abstract thing, and "statement" for a triple which is asserted.
17:22:24 <gkellogg> q+
17:22:37 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:23:09 <pchampin> q+
17:23:14 <ora> ack pchampin
17:23:18 <gkellogg> gkellogg: worries about breaking a concept by over-simplifying it.
17:23:34 <gkellogg> pchampin: I agree, a statement is something you make by putting a triple in a graph, it's not the triple itself.
17:23:43 <AndyS> +1 to text outside definitions saying "triple" can be clear by context and that's OK.
17:23:54 <gkellogg> ... I don't think we change the terminology, it's more how we introduce the terminology.
17:24:17 <gkellogg> ... We present them as two different kinds of things; I propose we go back to the CG report and define a triple as something abstract.
17:24:41 <gkellogg> ... When the context is not enough, we can call it "asserted", when it's used as the object, it's a "triple term".
17:24:48 <gkellogg> ... Most of text should work as is.
17:24:49 <niklasl> +1 to pchampin
17:25:06 <enrico> q+
17:25:12 <gkellogg> ora: I tend to agree. Are we fixing something that isn't really broken.
17:25:15 <ora> ack enrico
17:25:26 <Souri> q+
17:25:35 <gkellogg> enrico: We keep using "triple term" and "triple", and this could fix it.
17:26:00 <ora> ack Souri
17:26:02 <gkellogg> ... The notion of a triple being in a graph is improved by the definition of "appears in a graph".
17:26:22 <gkellogg> Souri: Having "asserted triple" and "triple term" makes things clearer.
17:26:36 <tl> q+
17:26:49 <gkellogg> ... It's when a triple is in a graph, or appears as a term.
17:27:28 <gkellogg> ... If we say triple, it would normally mean "asserted triple". The "asserted" could be added to clarify.
17:27:44 <niklasl> +1 to Souri, this clarifies the two roles that a triple may have (two usages).
17:27:52 <gkellogg> ora: You're suggesting we say "asserted triple" only when it's not clear from the context.
17:27:53 <ora> ack tl
17:28:33 <gkellogg> tl: I talked about asserted triples in the context of rdf:states. It has become common place in the WG, but I don't know that it is outside.
17:28:47 <gkellogg> ... Also, what happened to "statement", no one mentions the term any longer.
17:29:13 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#resources-and-statements "This statement corresponding to an RDF triple is known as an RDF statement."
17:29:19 <enrico> q+
17:29:26 <AndyS> q+
17:29:27 <pchampin> The statement *corresponds* to the triple, it *is* not the triple.
17:29:30 <gkellogg> ora: I think that "triple" has a lot of history; if you're worried that "asserted triple" is not in the spec, we can add it.
17:29:31 <ora> ack enrico
17:30:13 <gkellogg> enrico: We had a long discussion about the use of "statement". We were convinced from looking at the spec that "statement" is for asserted triple.
17:30:15 <niklasl> q+
17:30:35 <gkellogg> ... The current spec says that asserted triples are statements.
17:30:47 <ora> ack AndyS
17:31:17 <gkellogg> AndyS: I went through semantics, and the word "statement" comes up 12 times.
17:31:31 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-semantics/#extensions
17:31:35 <gkellogg> ... The first mention is "RDF statements of the form ...", and shows a triple.
17:31:38 <ora> ack niklasl
17:32:04 <gkellogg> niklasl: I agree with Enrico. We will need some work on the text to clarify things.
17:32:29 <gkellogg> ... Regarding this issue (replacing triple term with triple), I think it makes the specs simpler.
17:32:47 <james> are statements also propositions?
17:33:00 <gkellogg> ... I'm not too worried about this. I think this formally makes things simpler.
17:33:28 <pchampin> q+
17:33:35 <gkellogg> ora: What are we fixing here? Most of the language is already clear.
17:33:39 <ora> ack pchampin
17:34:10 <gkellogg> pchampin: We need to fix the definnitions of "triple" and "triple terms" in concepts. Currently, they are two different things; they need to be the same thing with different roles.
17:34:31 <gkellogg> ... That just affects the text where they are defined. I volunteered to make a PR for this.
17:35:03 <gkellogg> ora: do we need the resolution?
17:35:18 <gkellogg> ktk: I think we need it to limit future discussion.
17:35:39 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/150 -> Issue 150 Nature / role of triples (by pchampin) [needs discussion]
17:36:10 <gkellogg> +1
17:36:15 <pchampin> PROPOSAL: rephrase the definitions of triple and triple terms in RDF concepts according to https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/150
17:36:21 <fsasaki> +1
17:36:22 <niklasl> +1
17:36:22 <pchampin> +1
17:36:23 <ora> +1
17:36:24 <gkellogg> +1
17:36:25 <tl> +1
17:36:26 <doerthe> +1
17:36:26 <AndyS> +1
17:36:26 <TallTed> +1
17:36:26 <gtw> +1
17:36:27 <eBremer> +1
17:36:28 <Souri> +1
17:36:31 <james> +1
17:36:31 <ktk> +1
17:36:33 <james> q+
17:36:41 <enrico> +1
17:36:43 <ora> ack james
17:36:47 <AZ> +1
17:36:47 <Tpt> +1
17:37:03 <niklasl> q+
17:37:08 <gkellogg> james: As niklasl and enrico suggested, there's the concept of a "proposition". Whatever changes are made should recognize that.
17:37:08 <ora> ack niklasl
17:37:22 <gkellogg> niklasl: I think that's a good idea. Maybe we can coordinate on this.
17:37:38 <gkellogg> q?
17:38:06 <gkellogg> pchampin: No mention to mention the notion of Proposition in concepts; it's already defined in a PR against semantics.
17:38:08 <ora> RESOLVED: rephrase the definitions of triple and triple terms in RDF concepts according to https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/150
17:38:09 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/150 -> Issue 150 Nature / role of triples (by pchampin) [needs discussion]
17:38:29 <gkellogg> zakim, next item
17:38:29 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- triple terms in subject position - issues with RDF/XML? -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/138 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:38:44 <niklasl> FYI there is WIP wording in https://github.com/niklasl/rdf-concepts/tree/rdf12proposition
17:38:59 <pchampin> q+
17:39:24 <ora> ack pchampin
17:39:40 <gkellogg> pchampin: Last week, we decided to discuss triple terms in the subject position, but it's not just an RDF/XML issue.
17:39:54 <gkellogg> ... RDF/XML does point towards the problems of supporting this.
17:40:12 <niklasl> This is the general issue: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/138
17:40:17 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/138 -> Issue 138 Triple Terms in Subject Position (by rat10) [ms:CR] [spec:substantive]
17:40:27 <tl> q+
17:40:36 <gkellogg> ... Another argument against triple terms in the subject position is that we are encouraging people to only use triple terms as the object of rdf:reifies. Saying otherwise is sending mixed signals.
17:40:55 <ora> ack tl
17:41:34 <gkellogg> tl: I was in favor of this, but I re-thought about it, as it's been in the abstract grammar.
17:42:37 <gkellogg> ... If I want to talk about the type, why can't I create a reifier for that? It seems like a hack.
17:42:58 <niklasl> q+
17:43:05 <gkellogg> ... In RDF, we talk about something being asserted.
17:43:19 <gkellogg> ... If we treat triple terms differently, we look at only a single use case.
17:43:28 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:43:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/30-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
17:44:37 <gkellogg> ... There are things that have meaning, and it would be bad to dis-allow this.
17:44:58 <Souri> q+
17:45:04 <gkellogg> ... It would say that the whole construct is just about a single use case. Not saying something about it.
17:45:29 <gkellogg> ... I think we're re-making the "seminal mistake".
17:45:47 <gkellogg> ... If it doesn't work in some syntax, I don't think that's a problem.
17:45:53 <ora> ack niklasl
17:46:33 <gkellogg> niklasl: I disagree; primarily because I disagree with the use case, as the statement is about an abstract meaning, which requires a reifier.
17:46:36 <pchampin> For future reference, the seminal mistake: https://www.w3.org/2021/12/rdf-star.html#the-seminal-example
17:47:02 <gkellogg> ... Even in your explanation, you use a reifier.
17:47:37 <gkellogg> ... In RDF, we use names to describe things and we have a literal structural term which is abstract, denoting the value in the value space.
17:47:55 <gkellogg> ... Similarly, triple terms are structural, and are used to refer to the meaning of the triple, which is very abstract.
17:48:24 <gkellogg> ... I was more convinced that we should not allow this in concrete syntaxes because it is unsafe.
17:48:38 <gkellogg> ... Similar reasoning to why literals can't be subjects.
17:49:01 <gkellogg> ... I'm unconvinced by tl's argument. At the logical level, I see things differently.
17:49:14 <ora> ack Souri
17:49:37 <gkellogg> Souri: I fully support those two points: only in the object position, and only with rdf:reifies.
17:50:17 <gkellogg> ... But, from a practical point of view, users do a lot of things. The minimum we give them would be preferable rather than introduce too much false choice.
17:50:35 <gkellogg> ... As an implementor, the implementation gets harder when we allow too much flexibility.
17:51:03 <gkellogg> ... I think this is good rationale to restrict to the object position.
17:51:28 <ora> STRAWPOLL: Disallow triple terms in the subject position
17:51:29 <gkellogg> ora: I want to see if people are in favor of the restriction.
17:51:35 <ora> +1
17:51:36 <gkellogg> +1
17:51:36 <enrico> +0
17:51:37 <doerthe> -1
17:51:38 <tl> -1
17:51:40 <niklasl> +1
17:51:40 <AZ> -1
17:51:41 <pchampin> +0.5
17:51:41 <ktk> +1
17:51:41 <james> -1
17:51:42 <gtw> +1
17:51:42 <Souri> +1 for restriction
17:51:43 <Tpt> +0.5
17:51:44 <fsasaki> +1
17:51:50 <AndyS> +0.5
17:51:53 <TallTed> +0.7
17:51:54 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #Rdf-star
17:51:56 <eBremer> +0
17:52:12 <james> does the restriction apply to reifier?
17:52:15 <gkellogg> ora: we need to hear from people that don't support the position.
17:52:20 <doerthe> q+
17:52:22 <james> q+
17:52:27 <ora> ack doerthe
17:52:53 <gkellogg> doerthe: For me, having it only in the object position seems totally random.
17:53:07 <fsasaki> q+
17:53:12 <gkellogg> ... I could live with it, as we allow it in the semantics, but I don't see the added value of the restriction.
17:53:40 <gkellogg> ora: Would you be more in favor if it included a restriction on rdf:reifies?
17:53:53 <gkellogg> doerthe: Not really.
17:53:54 <ora> ack james
17:54:28 <gkellogg> james: My view of RDF is governed by a notion of symmetry; to restrict it is unnecessary, which will lead to problems.
17:54:47 <gkellogg> ... Similar to the restriction on rdf:reifies.
17:54:59 <ora> ack fsasaki
17:55:03 <gkellogg> ... Asymmetry in a statement is a bad idea.
17:55:39 <gkellogg> fsasaki: I understood that doerthe could live with it. Maybe we can get an understanding of what people mean by "-1".
17:55:50 <TallTed> q+ to note that RDF has always been asymmetric -- literals have never been allowed in subject position except in Generalized RDF (and SPARQL)
17:55:57 <ora> ack TallTed
17:55:57 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to note that RDF has always been asymmetric -- literals have never been allowed in subject position except in Generalized RDF (and SPARQL)
17:56:16 <gkellogg> TallTed: I don't understand how you can believe that RDF is symmetric, as it's never been so (literals).
17:56:56 <gkellogg> james: This is a new term, which is in many ways similar to things which are nodes.
17:57:08 <niklasl> q+
17:57:15 <gkellogg> ... If the group argued for treating it as a literal, it may make more sense.
17:57:30 <fsasaki> To add to my question: one could re-phrase in a binary way "could live with it" vs. "could not live it". But maybe not today since there is not enough time to think on it
17:57:30 <gkellogg> TallTed: Your model is that it is symetric.
17:57:40 <ora> ack niklasl
17:57:46 <gkellogg> james: It's symmetric for nodes.
17:58:10 <gkellogg> niklasl: In my model, IRIs and BNodes are nominal I don't know what they denote until I learn more.
17:58:48 <gkellogg> ... With literals and triple terms, they denote themselves and are wholly defined by their constituents.
17:58:54 <doerthe> what do they mean?
17:58:59 <gkellogg> ora: We're out of time, and can't conclude the discussion.
17:59:17 <gkellogg> ktk: It would be interesting to know what would be a common ground.
17:59:52 <gkellogg> ora: If you voted -1, please send something to the mailing list so we can find common ground.
18:00:26 <gkellogg> zakim, end meeting
18:00:26 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ktk, Dominik_T, pchampin, fsasaki, ora, gtw, AndyS, TallTed, gkellogg, niklasl, doerthe, AZ, james, Souri, eBremer, tl
18:00:29 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:00:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/30-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim
18:00:37 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, gkellogg; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:00:37 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
18:01:09 <gkellogg> rrsagent, bye
18:01:09 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
<pchampin> s/niklasl: In my model, IRIs and BNodes are nominal I don't know what they denote until I learn more./niklasl: In my mental model, literals are also nodes in the graph. IRIs and BNodes are nominal. I don't know what they denote until I learn more through triples.
<pchampin> s/... With literals and triple terms, they denote themselves and are wholly defined by their constituents./... With literals and triple terms, as fixed point structural resources, they are wholly defined by their constituents.
<pchampin> present+ enrico