15:08:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:08:09 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-irc
15:08:09 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:08:10 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
15:08:16 <niklasl> present+
15:08:17 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star Semantics Task Force
15:08:20 <pchampin> present+
15:09:32 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
15:09:36 <Souri> present+
15:10:21 <pfps> please, please, please - no N3!
15:10:23 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #rdf-star
15:10:38 <niklasl> q+
15:10:46 <niklasl> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/61
15:10:47 <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]
15:10:49 <enrico> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/61
15:11:25 <pfps> q+
15:11:31 <enrico> Doerthe N3 proposal defining unstar: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/61#issuecomment-2640034973
15:11:33 <AndyS> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/59c97770-65f5-4c46-9d03-86fb61ff2bbc/20250207T100000/#agenda
15:11:35 <niklasl> q-
15:11:35 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:11:35 <agendabot> agenda+ Open semantics issues:
15:11:36 <niklasl> q+
15:12:18 <AndyS> AndyS has changed the topic to: RDF-Star SemanticsTF -- 2025-02-07 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/59c97770-65f5-4c46-9d03-86fb61ff2bbc/20250207T100000/
15:12:36 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
15:12:44 <doerthe> present+
15:13:25 <AndyS> zakim, who is here?
15:13:25 <Zakim> Present: niklasl, pchampin, Souri, doerthe
15:13:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see doerthe, TallTed, Souri, RRSAgent, Zakim, enrico, AndyS, thomas, pfps, niklasl, driib5, gb, gtw, csarven, pchampin, agendabot, m2gbot, ktk, Tpt, rhiaro
15:13:36 <AndyS> present+
15:13:40 <niklasl> Note that simple { A } => { B} can mostly be expressed as INSERT { B } WHERE { A } with the exception that the sparql version must be iterated until no more triples are produced.
15:13:51 <enrico> Example: https://editor.notation3.org/s/C3T2zF6k
15:14:01 <TallTed> RRSAgent, pointer?
15:14:01 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-irc#T15-14-01
15:14:15 <TallTed> clear agenda
15:14:17 <TallTed> agenda+ Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/61
15:14:17 <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]
15:14:19 <TallTed> agenda+ New entailment pattern rdfD1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/70
15:14:19 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/70 -> Issue 70 New entailment pattern rdfD1 (by doerthe)
15:14:21 <TallTed> agenda+ completeness of RDFS entailment rules https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/76
15:14:21 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/76 -> Issue 76 completeness of RDFS entailment rules (by pfps) [spec:editorial]
15:14:23 <TallTed> agenda+ Define an interpretation of Triple Terms https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49
15:14:23 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 -> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [needs discussion]
15:14:25 <TallTed> Zakim, open agendum 1
15:14:25 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/61 -- taken up [from TallTed]
15:14:45 <niklasl> (And also note my comment that this example conflates unstarring and classic reification tokens.)
15:14:49 <TallTed> present+
15:15:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:15:53 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/02/06-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:15:55 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/02/13-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:16:41 <niklasl> How can you preserve :myDenotes if you have unstarred to a no-triple-term environment?
15:16:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:17:27 <enrico> q?
15:19:05 <pfps> q+ my audio should be fixed
15:19:19 <pfps> q+ to my audio should be fixed
15:21:33 <pchampin> q+
15:22:27 <pchampin> q-
15:22:54 <AndyS> ack niklasl
15:23:33 <enrico> q?
15:23:56 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/115
15:23:57 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/115 -> Pull Request 115 add section about 'unstar' mapping (by pchampin) [spec:enhancement]
15:24:35 <niklasl> q+
15:24:42 <AndyS> ack pfps
15:24:42 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to my audio should be fixed
15:24:48 <doerthe> q+
15:25:26 <niklasl> No, the PR is on concepts.
15:25:51 <pchampin> q+
15:26:41 <niklasl> I would prefer to move everything about classic reification and containers to RDF schema, and add an appendix there explaining how classic reification compares to reifiers.
15:26:45 <thomas> q+
15:27:38 <niklasl> (Since it has to be somewhere and we don't want yet another document.)
15:28:49 <niklasl> (Though I can attempt a new Note, but moving explanations about things being defined in RDF schema to a note seems wrong...)
15:29:05 <enrico> ack nikasl
15:29:10 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:30:45 <enrico> ack doerthe
15:31:38 <thomas> sounds to me like concepts would be the best place, because schema and semantics are both rather specific, and primer should be short, and another note is also not very user friendly
15:33:22 <niklasl> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-semantics/spec/#non_semantics
15:33:42 <AndyS> RDF Schema: 5.3 Reification Vocabulary "This section is non-normative."
15:34:25 <niklasl> THAT I want.
15:34:40 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:34:41 <niklasl> (wanted; maybe still want)
15:35:00 <niklasl> "that" being https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49
15:35:00 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 -> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [needs discussion]
15:37:09 <niklasl> If a Note is formally OK that's probably for the best.
15:37:27 <thomas> "Note on Best Practices" sounds promising...
15:38:00 <niklasl> q+
15:38:07 <enrico> ack thomas
15:38:37 <niklasl> I tried to keep the primer small...
15:38:39 <niklasl> (ish)
15:39:19 <AndyS> Not primer - this is a small feature.
15:39:28 <enrico> niklasl
15:39:50 <enrico> q+
15:39:57 <enrico> ack niklasl
15:41:53 <AndyS> q+
15:42:14 <pchampin> q-
15:42:23 <AndyS> ack enrico
15:42:57 <AndyS> q-
15:43:10 <pchampin> q+
15:43:45 <niklasl> I don't think that (conflating) is what @pchampin suggested?
15:44:14 <enrico> ack pchampin
15:45:47 <enrico> q+
15:46:24 <niklasl> I already used rdf:Statment in the primer: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-primer/spec/#section-turtle-reifier-representation
15:48:45 <niklasl> q+
15:50:13 <AndyS> ack enrico
15:50:16 <pchampin> old style:  :john :believes [ rdf:subject :s ; rdf:predicate :p ; rdf:object :o ].
15:50:16 <pchampin> new style:  :john :believes << :s :p :o >>.
15:50:22 <niklasl> +100
15:50:39 <AndyS> ack niklasl
15:51:48 <enrico> new style in expanded version:  :john :believes _:b .     _:b rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>>.
15:52:15 <thomas>  :john :believes << :s :p :o >>.  :bob :believes << :s :p :o >>. - do :john and :bob have the same believe?
15:52:18 <thomas> q+
15:54:02 <niklasl> Yes, full occurrences.
15:54:43 <niklasl> They have to beliefs with the same meaning.
15:54:54 <niklasl> s/to/two/
15:55:00 <AndyS> q+
15:55:03 <enrico> new style in unstarred version:  :john :believes _:b .     _:b rdf:reifies _:p .    _:p rdf:subject :s .  _:p rdf:object :o .  _:p rdf:predicate :p .
15:55:08 <niklasl> One belief was informed, the other a guess.
15:55:10 <AndyS> ack thomas
15:55:41 <doerthe> they can however be the same, that is important
15:55:58 <niklasl> They have the same meaning. Or parts thereof. Maybe :john also believes :s :name "Bob".
15:56:04 <niklasl> q?
15:56:07 <niklasl> q+
15:56:29 <niklasl> The fact that people don't get the difference is an argument _for_ not allowing both.
15:57:09 <niklasl> Bare triple terms is enough rope ...
15:57:16 <pchampin> q+
15:57:41 <enrico> ack andys
15:57:59 <thomas> q+
16:00:18 <niklasl> It is an abstract fundamental logical structure.  It is the stuff we build the model with.
16:01:05 <pchampin> q-
16:01:19 <enrico> ack niklasl
16:01:28 <thomas> q-
16:01:57 <AndyS> agenda?
16:06:46 <enrico> Acton: @niklasl drafts a note on agenda item 1
16:07:02 <enrico> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/70#issuecomment-2642747614
16:07:03 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/70 -> Issue 70 New entailment pattern rdfD1 (by doerthe)
16:08:01 <doerthe> q+
16:08:25 <pchampin> q+
16:08:31 <enrico> ack doerthe
16:09:28 <enrico> ack pchampin
16:10:18 <pchampin> IF S CONTAINS
16:10:18 <pchampin> s p o
16:10:18 <pchampin> with "a"^^D appearing in o
16:10:51 <pchampin> THEN
16:10:51 <pchampin> s p SUBST(o, "a"^^D, _:b).
16:10:51 <pchampin> _b rdf:type D.
16:11:03 <enrico> S[t1/t2]
16:12:48 <enrico> action: @doerthe tries to define the substitution operator for appearances
16:12:55 <gb> Cannot create action. Validation failed. Maybe doerthe tries is not a valid user for w3c/rdf-star-wg?
16:13:23 <TallTed> Zakim, open item 3
16:13:23 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- completeness of RDFS entailment rules https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/76 -- taken up [from TallTed]
16:14:20 <enrico> Action: do not claim that rdfsD14 is complete
16:14:53 <doerthe> I am still willing to think about it, but that might take longer :)
16:14:54 <enrico> Zakim, open item 4
16:14:54 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Define an interpretation of Triple Terms https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 -- taken up [from TallTed]
16:15:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:16:26 <enrico> Action: pchampin twrite about unification of terminology: triple / triple term
16:16:27 <gb> Cannot create action. Validation failed. Maybe pchampin twrite about unification of terminology is not a valid user for w3c/rdf-star-wg?
16:17:08 <TallTed> Action: pchampin to write about unification of terminology: triple / triple term
16:17:09 <gb> Created -> action #145 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/145
16:17:16 <thomas> q+
16:17:55 <enrico> ack thomas
16:20:47 <niklasl> q+
16:20:53 <enrico> ack niklasl
16:21:00 <pchampin> q+
16:21:25 <niklasl> IPR = { <s, p, o> | s ∈ IR, o ∈ IR, p ∈ IP }
16:21:25 <niklasl> T = { <s, p, o> | <s, o> ∈ IEXT(p), p ∈ IP }
16:21:25 <niklasl> T ⊂ IPR
16:22:32 <enrico> ack pchampin
16:23:14 <doerthe> that is why Niklas is trying to change subject ;)
16:26:35 <pchampin> q+
16:26:41 <enrico> ack pchampin
16:26:43 <doerthe> that is not that good because a graph is a ste of triples already
16:26:48 <doerthe> set
16:30:08 <Souri> s/ ste / set /
16:30:17 <niklasl> IPR is the set of propositons. T is the set of true propositions (sometimes called statements) *in the current model*.
16:30:51 <thomas> q+
16:30:54 <Souri> My position => 1) a triple-term appears only in the object position and 2) only in (asserted) triples where rdf:reifies has been used as the predicate.
16:32:46 <niklasl> Ce n'est pas un graphe.
16:34:36 <niklasl> This is not a graph. It is a world (a model) described by a graph.
16:34:37 <pchampin> I(G) is a subset of IPR, and I satisfies G if I(G) is a subset of T
16:35:20 <doerthe> I agree as well
16:35:34 <niklasl> +1
16:35:41 <doerthe> no, one moment
16:37:07 <enrico> GEXT(G) is a subset of IPR, and I satisfies G if GEXT(G) is a subset of T
16:37:19 <enrico> GEXT(G) is a subset of IPR, and GEXT satisfies G if GEXT(G) is a subset of T
16:37:46 <doerthe> with GEXT((s,p,o))=(I(s),I(p),I(o))
16:37:47 <enrico> Given I, GEXT(G) is a subset of IPR, and GEXT satisfies G if GEXT(G) is a subset of T
16:38:19 <enrico> Given I, GEXT(G) is a subset of IPR, and I satisfies G if GEXT(G) is a subset of T
16:38:49 <niklasl> +1 AFAICT
16:39:09 <doerthe> and then a clean definition for gext, but I like it as well
16:39:28 <enrico> with GEXT((s,p,o))=(I(s),I(p),I(o))
16:39:33 <enrico> Given I, GEXT(G) is a subset of IPR, and I satisfies G if GEXT(G) is a subset of T
16:40:10 <doerthe> and GEXT(G) defined as the set of GEXT(t) for the t in G
16:40:44 <doerthe> I know, sorry
16:40:53 <niklasl> Be picky!
16:41:12 <niklasl> I.e. nothing to be sorry about.
16:41:28 <doerthe> bye
16:41:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:42:59 <TallTed> scribe: none
16:43:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:44:10 <TallTed> chair: enrico
16:44:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:47:27 <TallTed> s|Action: pchampin twrite about unification of terminology: triple / triple term||
16:47:46 <TallTed> s|Cannot create action. Validation failed. Maybe pchampin twrite about unification of terminology is not a valid user for w3c/rdf-star-wg?||
16:47:52 <pfps> pfps has left #rdf-star
16:48:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:48:42 <TallTed> Zakim, bye
16:48:42 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been niklasl, pchampin, Souri, doerthe, AndyS, TallTed
16:48:42 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
16:48:45 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
16:48:45 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-actions.rdf :
16:48:45 <RRSAgent> ACTION: @doerthe tries to define the substitution operator for appearances [1]
16:48:45 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-irc#T16-12-48
16:48:45 <RRSAgent> ACTION: do not claim that rdfsD14 is complete [2]
16:48:45 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-irc#T16-14-20
16:48:45 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pchampin twrite about unification of terminology: triple / triple term [3]
16:48:45 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-irc#T16-16-26
16:48:45 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pchampin to write about unification of terminology: triple / triple term [4]
16:48:45 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/02/07-rdf-star-irc#T16-17-08