14:49:30 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
14:55:37 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #rdf-star
14:58:51 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF-Star Semantics TF -- 2025-02-14 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/59c97770-65f5-4c46-9d03-86fb61ff2bbc/20250214T100000/
14:59:29 <TallTed> Zakim, bye
14:59:29 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been TallTed, niklasl, pchampin, gtw, enrico, fsasaki, rubensworks, tl, pfps, ora, Tpt, eBremer, james, olaf, Dominik_T, AZ, doerthe
14:59:29 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
14:59:31 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
14:59:31 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
14:59:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:59:39 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/14-rdf-star-irc
14:59:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-star
14:59:53 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/59c97770-65f5-4c46-9d03-86fb61ff2bbc/20250214T100000/
14:59:53 <agendabot> clear agenda
14:59:53 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion on -> PR #91 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/91 : A formal background to unify triples and triple terms
14:59:53 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion on -> issue #49 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 : Define an interpretation of Triple Terms
14:59:54 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion on -> issue #61 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/61 : Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies
14:59:56 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion on -> issue #86 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/86 : Define the substitution function of appearances
15:00:58 <AndyS> present+
15:01:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/14-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:01:56 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
15:02:02 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/02/13-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:02:02 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/02/20-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:02:02 <TallTed> present+
15:02:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/14-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:02:25 <niklasl> present+
15:02:45 <pfps> present+
15:02:51 <pfps> pfps has left #rdf-star
15:03:03 <TallTed> present: pfps, AndyS, niklasl, TallTed
15:03:04 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
15:03:14 <pfps> present+
15:03:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/14-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:03:43 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-star Semantics TF
15:03:45 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
15:03:53 <Souri> present+
15:06:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/14-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:07:10 <TallTed> scribe: not_me
15:08:48 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
15:08:56 <tl> present+
15:13:26 <pchampin> zakim: open item 1
15:13:34 <pchampin> scribe+
15:13:55 <pchampin> s|zakim: open item 1|
15:13:57 <pchampin> zakim, open item 1
15:13:57 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Discussion on -> PR #91 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/91 : A formal background to unify triples and triple terms -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:14:13 <pchampin> Discussion about the PR, whether RE could be the identity or not.
15:22:43 <pchampin> Discussion about how model theory makes RDF scary for many people. The RDF Semantics should aim to be less scary.
15:23:25 <pchampin> Discussion about the term "fact" , and the importance to frame it in the context of an interpretation.
15:27:25 <pchampin> No objection among the native participants to merge the PR with the suggested changes.
15:27:52 <pchampin> Zakim, open next item
15:27:52 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Discussion on -> issue #49 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 : Define an interpretation of Triple Terms -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:29:25 <pchampin> niklasl: this issue led to discuss the relevance of the sections about reification, containers... in the semantics document
15:29:29 <pchampin> q+
15:31:00 <pchampin> ... Enrico was worried about my proposal to "expand" the structure of triple terms.
15:31:20 <pchampin> ... Triple terms could "pop out" of the spurious use of the corresponding properties.
15:31:36 <pchampin> ack
15:31:42 <pchampin> ack pchampin
15:33:59 <pchampin> pchampin: I think the sections in RDF-SEMANTICS about reification, containers... are comments on those terms from the perspective of semantics.
15:34:22 <pchampin> ... They are not defining those terms. RDF-SCHEMA is. This could perhaps be made more clear.
15:34:43 <pchampin> ... For an entailment regime that "expands" triple terms, this should be at most a note.
15:35:19 <pchampin> niklasl: I generally agree. Note that this entailment regime would make unstar moot.
15:35:21 <pchampin> q?
15:36:08 <pchampin> ... I'll work on making my case.
15:38:24 <pchampin> pchampin: the 'unstar' mapping manages to roundtrip by "reserving" the vocabulary used to expand.
15:38:36 <pchampin> ... If we make them part of entailment, we can not forbid their use.
15:39:53 <pchampin> niklasl: I sympathize with that.  But this "reserved" vocabulary could maybe be less "private".
15:40:08 <pchampin> ... Compare with the rdf:langString datatype, which you are not supposed to use directly.
15:43:04 <pchampin> q?
15:44:37 <pchampin> zakim, open next item
15:44:37 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Discussion on -> issue #61 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/61 : Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies -- taken up
15:44:40 <Zakim> ... [from agendabot]
15:46:11 <pchampin> niklasl: linked to the previous issue.
15:46:31 <pchampin> ... In a previous conversation, people suggested that old-style reification nodes were a kind of reifier.
15:46:58 <pchampin> AndyS: should we say *in what way* they are a kind of reifier?
15:47:29 <pchampin> ... Is the new thing is a superset of the old thing? A replacement for it?
15:47:30 <pchampin> q+
15:47:50 <pchampin> ... As soon as you say there is a relationship, you imply that the old stuff does not need to be replaced.
15:48:02 <pchampin> niklasl: yes, these are important points.
15:48:07 <tl> q+
15:48:31 <pchampin> ... The class rdf:Statement is a set, conceptually a subset of reifiers.
15:49:43 <pchampin> ... But you can't infer that there is a reified triple term from an instance of rdf:Statement (its properties can be broken, incomplete...).
15:49:53 <pchampin> ... You could infer the other way around.
15:50:26 <pchampin> AndyS: we need this in a document to discuss it further.
15:51:04 <pchampin> niklasl: my hope is that this could be included in the note.
15:51:19 <pchampin> ack pchampin
15:52:33 <niklasl> q+
15:54:21 <pchampin> pchampin: +1 to have this explainations, but in rdf-primer, not rdf-semantics
15:54:23 <pchampin> ack tl
15:54:56 <pchampin> ... the new style reification has two advantages compared to old style: more expressive (marriages, etc.), and atomic
15:55:21 <pchampin> tl: I don't think that the primer should mention old-style reification
15:56:18 <pchampin> ... OTOH, people for whom old style reification does not the job should not need to change.
15:56:20 <tl> present-
15:57:15 <pchampin> ... For me, old style reification is exactly the same thing as rdf:reifies with exactly one triple term.
15:57:33 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:57:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/14-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
15:58:14 <pchampin> niklasl: I agree with tl that we should not make any of our documents too much about old-style reification.
15:58:20 <pchampin> q?
16:04:10 <pchampin> pchampin: I disagree with tl about the primer not mentioning old-style reification.
16:04:25 <pchampin> ... The primer is also a place where RDF 1.1 user will look for info about what's new.
16:04:46 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:04:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/14-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
20:58:22 <pfps> pfps has left #rdf-star