Meeting minutes
<pfps> please, please, please - no N3!
<niklasl> w3c/
<gb> Issue 61 Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies (by niklasl) [spec:editorial]
<enrico> w3c/
<enrico> Doerthe N3 proposal defining unstar: w3c/
<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.
<enrico> Example: https://
<gb> Issue 61 Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies (by niklasl) [spec:editorial]
<gb> Issue 70 New entailment pattern rdfD1 (by doerthe)
<gb> Issue 76 completeness of RDFS entailment rules (by pfps) [spec:editorial]
<gb> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [needs discussion]
Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies w3c/rdf-semantics#61
<niklasl> (And also note my comment that this example conflates unstarring and classic reification tokens.)
<niklasl> How can you preserve :myDenotes if you have unstarred to a no-triple-term environment?
<pchampin> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 115 add section about 'unstar' mapping (by pchampin) [spec:enhancement]
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to my audio should be fixed
<niklasl> No, the PR is on concepts.
<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.
<niklasl> (Since it has to be somewhere and we don't want yet another document.)
<niklasl> (Though I can attempt a new Note, but moving explanations about things being defined in RDF schema to a note seems wrong...)
<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
<niklasl> https://
<AndyS> RDF Schema: 5.3 Reification Vocabulary "This section is non-normative."
<niklasl> THAT I want.
<niklasl> (wanted; maybe still want)
<niklasl> "that" being w3c/
<gb> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [needs discussion]
<niklasl> If a Note is formally OK that's probably for the best.
<thomas> "Note on Best Practices" sounds promising...
<niklasl> I tried to keep the primer small...
<niklasl> (ish)
<AndyS> Not primer - this is a small feature.
<enrico> niklasl
<niklasl> I don't think that (conflating) is what @pchampin suggested?
<niklasl> I already used rdf:Statment in the primer: https://
<pchampin> old style: :john :believes [ rdf:subject :s ; rdf:predicate :p ; rdf:object :o ].
<pchampin> new style: :john :believes << :s :p :o >>.
<niklasl> +100
<enrico> new style in expanded version: :john :believes _:b . _:b rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>>.
<thomas> :john :believes << :s :p :o >>. :bob :believes << :s :p :o >>. - do :john and :bob have the same believe?
<niklasl> Yes, full occurrences.
<niklasl> They have two beliefs with the same meaning.
<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 .
<niklasl> One belief was informed, the other a guess.
<doerthe> they can however be the same, that is important
<niklasl> They have the same meaning. Or parts thereof. Maybe :john also believes :s :name "Bob".
<niklasl> The fact that people don't get the difference is an argument _for_ not allowing both.
<niklasl> Bare triple terms is enough rope ...
<niklasl> It is an abstract fundamental logical structure. It is the stuff we build the model with.
<enrico> Acton: @niklasl drafts a note on agenda item 1
<enrico> w3c/
<gb> Issue 70 New entailment pattern rdfD1 (by doerthe)
<pchampin> IF S CONTAINS
<pchampin> s p o
<pchampin> with "a"^^D appearing in o
<pchampin> THEN
<pchampin> s p SUBST(o, "a"^^D, _:b).
<pchampin> _b rdf:type D.
<enrico> S[t1/t2]
ACTION: @doerthe tries to define the substitution operator for appearances
<gb> Cannot create action. Validation failed. Maybe doerthe tries is not a valid user for w3c/rdf-star-wg?
completeness of RDFS entailment rules w3c/rdf-semantics#76
ACTION: do not claim that rdfsD14 is complete
<doerthe> I am still willing to think about it, but that might take longer :)
Define an interpretation of Triple Terms w3c/rdf-semantics#49
ACTION: pchampin to write about unification of terminology: triple / triple term
<gb> Created action #145
<niklasl> IPR = { <s, p, o> | s ∈ IR, o ∈ IR, p ∈ IP }
<niklasl> T = { <s, p, o> | <s, o> ∈ IEXT(p), p ∈ IP }
<niklasl> T ⊂ IPR
<doerthe> that is why Niklas is trying to change subject ;)
<doerthe> that is not that good because a graph is a set of triples already
<doerthe> set
<niklasl> IPR is the set of propositons. T is the set of true propositions (sometimes called statements) *in the current model*.
<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.
<niklasl> Ce n'est pas un graphe.
<niklasl> This is not a graph. It is a world (a model) described by a graph.
<pchampin> I(G) is a subset of IPR, and I satisfies G if I(G) is a subset of T
<doerthe> I agree as well
<niklasl> +1
<doerthe> no, one moment
<enrico> GEXT(G) is a subset of IPR, and I satisfies G if GEXT(G) is a subset of T
<enrico> GEXT(G) is a subset of IPR, and GEXT satisfies G if GEXT(G) is a subset of T
<doerthe> with GEXT((s,p,o))=(I(s),I(p),I(o))
<enrico> Given I, GEXT(G) is a subset of IPR, and GEXT satisfies G if GEXT(G) is a subset of T
<enrico> Given I, GEXT(G) is a subset of IPR, and I satisfies G if GEXT(G) is a subset of T
<niklasl> +1 AFAICT
<doerthe> and then a clean definition for gext, but I like it as well
<enrico> with GEXT((s,p,o))=(I(s),I(p),I(o))
<enrico> Given I, GEXT(G) is a subset of IPR, and I satisfies G if GEXT(G) is a subset of T
<doerthe> and GEXT(G) defined as the set of GEXT(t) for the t in G
<doerthe> I know, sorry
<niklasl> Be picky!
<niklasl> I.e. nothing to be sorry about.
<doerthe> bye