Meeting minutes
<gb> Pull Request 74 fix some punctuation and such in semantics.md (by TallTed)
<gb> Pull Request 74 Update RDF-semantics with the liberal baseline RDF and RDFS semantics (by franconi) [spec:substantive]
<gb> CLOSED Action 49 put in the repo the "source of truth" for labels (on pchampin) due 13 Apr 2023
<gb> Issue 61 CSS changes reduce readability of documents (by pfps) [needs discussion]
<gb> Issue 70 New entailment pattern rdfD1 (by doerthe)
<gb> CLOSED Pull Request 70 Update semantics.md to improve readability of example (by rat10)
<gb> Issue 61 Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies (by niklasl) [spec:editorial]
<gb> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [needs discussion]
discuss PR #74
<pfps> I just created w3c/
<gb> Issue 76 completeness of RDFS entailment rules (by pfps)
<enrico> issue https://
<TallTed> s|discuss the open issues in RDF-semantics: #49, #61, #70 |discuss the open issues in RDF-semantics: https://
<AndyS> Please put <p class="issue" data-number="76">TEXT</p> in the doc at the appropriate place.
<niklasl> +1
<doerthe> can you give the link again, I forgot the number we are discussing
<enrico> Mu comment: w3c/
<gb> Issue 61 Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies (by niklasl) [spec:editorial]
<niklasl> and w3c/
<gb> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [needs discussion]
<niklasl> w3c/
<gb> Issue 27 Integrating different ontology designs through entailment upon triple terms (by niklasl) [use case]
<pfps> Yes, unstar is just a crutch.
<gb> Issue 61 Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies (by niklasl) [spec:editorial]
<Zakim> enrico, you wanted to comment on going via w3c/
<doerthe> don't start the discussion please, but we could still drop injectivity ;)
<enrico> 😱
<tl> +! to d. :P
<enrico> :A :R :D .
<enrico> :D :R :A .
<enrico> :T rdf:type :D .
<enrico> :A rdfs:subclassof :A .
<enrico> OWL-entails if metamodelling triple could be in the ABox graph (but not RDFS-entails):
<enrico> _:x :R _:y .
<enrico> _:z rdf:type _:y .
<enrico> _:x rdfs:subclassof :D .
<doerthe> I will think about it and come back to it
<enrico> unstar in sparql, a (wrong) proposal: w3c/
<gb> Issue 61 Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies (by niklasl) [spec:editorial]
<niklasl> https://
<enrico> unstar definition: w3c/
<niklasl> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 115 add section about 'unstar' mapping (by pchampin) [spec:enhancement]
<niklasl> w3c/
<gb> Issue 114 Un-star operation to support RDF Dataset Canonicalization? (by niklasl) [needs discussion]
<niklasl> Cf. https://
<enrico> Proposal: approve PR #74, once final minor fixes done by Enrico: (a) wording of rfds14, (b) deleting offending external references, (c) refer to an issue on completeness of entailment pattern for rdfs:Proposition
<gb> Pull Request 74 fix some punctuation and such in semantics.md (by TallTed)
<pfps> +1
<enrico> +1
<tl> +1
<doerthe> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<enrico> and (d) typos fixed by doerthe
<TallTed> +1
<enrico> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 74 Update RDF-semantics with the liberal baseline RDF and RDFS semantics (by franconi) [spec:substantive]
<niklasl> +1 (on good faith)
ACTION: by enrico: write to mailing list to open an issue unifying all the discussions on unstar and related approaches
<gb> Cannot create action. Validation failed. Maybe by enrico is not a valid user for w3c/rdf-star-wg?
<enrico> enrico will write to mailing list to open an issue unifying all the discussions on unstar and related approaches
<TallTed> is this the RESOLUTION? : approve https://
RESOLUTION: approve https://