16:57:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
16:57:07 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-rdf-star-irc
16:57:07 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-star
16:57:55 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-star WG biweekly focused meeting
16:57:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:58:12 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3f89f9e9-2ddb-4587-8c60-2dfdc927320a/20250227T120000/
16:58:12 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:58:12 <agendabot> agenda+ Formal Working Group vote about triple terms in the subject position -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/139681/2025-rdf-star-tripleterms-subject/
16:58:12 <agendabot> agenda+ Remove rdf:plainLiteral from Semantics? -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/84
16:58:13 <agendabot> agenda+ Turtle Grammar: Collections and blank node property lists in triple terms -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/132
16:58:14 <agendabot> agenda+ Streamline Turtle-star syntactic sugar and future-proof it for graphs -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/131
16:58:18 <agendabot> agenda+ Which parties carry what costs of text/turtle changes, and do those outweigh which benefits for whom? -> 5 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/141
16:58:49 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:59:19 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/02/21-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:59:19 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/02/28-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:59:22 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
16:59:34 <james> james has joined #rdf-star
16:59:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:00:02 <tl> present+
17:00:03 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:00:07 <olaf> present+
17:00:08 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #rdf-star
17:00:12 <olaf> scribe+
17:00:17 <ora> present+
17:00:18 <fsasaki> present+
17:00:20 <ora> chair+
17:00:20 <gtw> present+
17:00:25 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF-star WG biweekly focused meeting -- agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3f89f9e9-2ddb-4587-8c60-2dfdc927320a/20250227T120000/
17:00:27 <james> present+
17:00:38 <TallTed> present+
17:00:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:00:51 <gkellogg> present+
17:00:58 <AndyS> present+
17:01:33 <niklasl> present+
17:01:51 <ktk> present+
17:01:57 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
17:02:21 <tl> vscode
17:02:26 <Souri> present+
17:02:41 <james> protege on occasion
17:03:34 <TallTed> OSDE, The OpenLink Structured Data Editor -- https://osde.openlinksw.com/
17:03:48 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-star
17:04:38 <AZ> present+
17:05:15 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #Rdf-star
17:05:31 <Dominik_T> present+
17:05:38 <TallTed> Zakim, open first agendum
17:05:38 <Zakim> I don't understand 'open first agendum', TallTed
17:05:38 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
17:05:42 <TallTed> Zakim, open first item
17:05:42 <Zakim> I don't understand 'open first item', TallTed
17:05:52 <eBremer> present+
17:05:54 <TallTed> Zakim, open item one
17:05:54 <Zakim> 'one' does not match any agenda item, TallTed
17:05:54 <olaf> ora: First item is the reporting on the survey
17:06:11 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/139681/2025-rdf-star-tripleterms-subject/results
17:06:16 <olaf> pchampin: link to results
17:06:27 <TallTed> Zakim, next item
17:06:27 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Formal Working Group vote about triple terms in the subject position -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/139681/2025-rdf-star-tripleterms-subject/ -- taken up [from
17:06:27 <olaf> ... no consensus
17:06:30 <Zakim> ... agendabot]
17:06:38 <olaf> ... three formal objections on each side
17:06:58 <olaf> ... Our process is that the chairs can take a chairs decision, recording that their is dissent
17:08:03 <olaf> ... 8 persons prefer to forbid triple terms in the subject position, 5 persons prefer to allow it, and 12 (?) are okay with both
17:08:24 <james> q+
17:08:32 <olaf> ... The chairs decision needs to be described carefully, better on the mailing list than here in the call
17:08:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:09:01 <olaf> ora: Yes, we will announce on the mailing list. Interesting situation.
17:09:02 <olaf> ... not unexpected.
17:09:37 <olaf> ktk: Unfortunately, yes, no consensus.
17:09:56 <ora> ack james
17:10:00 <olaf> ... BTW, I liked this way of voting (for such difficult things)
17:10:15 <olaf> james: This GitHub issue on this topic is very long
17:10:29 <olaf> ... it contains argument for both directions
17:11:10 <olaf> ... I request the chairs to take these into account (respond to them) when describing their chairs' decision
17:11:17 <olaf> ora: yes, sounds reasonable
17:11:24 <ktk> regrets+ enrico
17:11:43 <ktk> Zakim, next item
17:11:43 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Remove rdf:plainLiteral from Semantics? -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/84 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:11:43 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
17:11:50 <pfps> present+
17:12:14 <olaf> ora: This issue was opened by pfps
17:12:45 <pfps> sorry, I'm late
17:12:58 <pfps> one moment to fix audio
17:13:07 <gkellogg> q+
17:13:14 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:13:16 <pfps> fixed now
17:13:48 <olaf> gkellogg: related to that, there is an issue on removing ... (?) from RDF/XML
17:13:57 <olaf> s/issue/PR
17:14:02 <pfps> As I see, there are several options - deprecate, remove and note, ...
17:14:14 <gkellogg> s/(?)/PlainLiteral/
17:14:19 <olaf> ... when that PR is merged, there is no reference anymore to plainLiteral in the RDF/XML spec
17:14:57 <olaf> pfps: RDF 1.1 fixed the issue, but plainLiteral remained in the Semantics doc
17:15:02 <AndyS> q+
17:15:08 <ora> ack AndyS
17:15:16 <olaf> ... question is whether to remove it or to add a deprecation note
17:15:29 <olaf> ... I prefer the latter (depr.note)
17:16:02 <olaf> AndyS: Remove it and leave a change node.
17:16:17 <olaf> ... because it is just a datatype
17:16:53 <olaf> pfps: With this rationale, rdf:JSON should go too, because it is also just a datatype
17:17:09 <olaf> AndyS: but that one is not in RDF-Semantics, right?
17:17:21 <ktk> q?
17:17:28 <olaf> pfps: Yes. In this sense it's different.
17:17:30 <ora> PROPOSAL: Remove rdf:plainLiteral from Semantics doc and add a change note
17:17:37 <Dominik_T> +1
17:17:38 <ora> +1
17:17:38 <gkellogg> +1
17:17:39 <AZ> +1
17:17:40 <tl> +1
17:17:40 <olaf> +1
17:17:41 <fsasaki> +1
17:17:42 <ktk> +1
17:17:42 <AndyS> +1
17:17:44 <pfps> +0
17:17:45 <james> +0
17:17:46 <TallTed> +1
17:17:46 <Souri> +1
17:17:47 <pchampin> +1
17:17:47 <gtw> +1
17:17:51 <niklasl> +1
17:18:31 <olaf> pchampin: Any objection to replacing "remove" by "deprecate"?
17:18:34 <eBremer> +1
17:18:38 <gkellogg> q+
17:18:53 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:18:57 <olaf> pfps: The change note should say that it is removed.
17:19:14 <olaf> ora: It is at the editors' discretion how to phrase that note.
17:19:25 <niklasl> Removing the URL would be uncool?
17:19:32 <olaf> gkellogg: Should we and can we remove it from the namespace document?
17:19:46 <pchampin> q+
17:19:50 <niklasl> q+
17:19:57 <niklasl> What's the standing of https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/ ?
17:20:01 <olaf> pfps: I would say we should remove it from the namespace. It is a historical artifact; none is using it.
17:20:52 <ora> ack pchampin
17:20:52 <olaf> ... The note in the Semantics doc should include saying that it was also removed from the namespace doc.
17:20:56 <niklasl> From the namespace RDF: rdf:PlainLiteral a rdfs:Datatype ; rdfs:comment "The class of plain (i.e. untyped) literal values, as used in RIF and OWL 2" ; rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> ; rdfs:label "PlainLiteral" ; rdfs:seeAlso <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/> ; rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Literal .
17:21:20 <ora> RESOLVED: Remove rdf:plainLiteral from Semantics doc and add a change note
17:21:29 <olaf> pchampin: I suggest to record the resolution first.
17:21:43 <james> q+
17:22:08 <olaf> ... response to gkellog that plainLiteral is not in ... (?) but in the RDF file.
17:22:12 <ora> ack niklasl
17:22:25 <olaf> niklasl: What pchampin said.
17:22:50 <olaf> ... it would be uncool if the URI disappears
17:22:51 <ora> ack james
17:22:59 <olaf> ... but a note can be added in the RDF file
17:23:09 <Dominik_T> https://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns#unstable?
17:23:30 <olaf> james: If there is no longer a definition for it, it should be removed from the RDF file such that it doesn't appear in results anymore.
17:23:44 <olaf> pfps: There is still a definition in a separate document.
17:23:44 <niklasl> +1 to deprecate (even rdf:PlainLiteral owl:deprecated true . )
17:24:02 <olaf> james: In this case, okay.
17:24:21 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:24:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
17:24:39 <olaf> ora: action for pfps to take care of implementing this decision
17:24:46 <pchampin> ACTION: pfps to make a PR to remove plainLiteral from semantics
17:24:53 <gb> Created -> action #147 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/147
17:24:53 <ktk> Zakim, next item
17:24:53 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Turtle Grammar: Collections and blank node property lists in triple terms -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/132 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:25:26 <olaf> ora: Next issue came from Dörte, who is not here today.
17:25:42 <olaf> ... What do we think?
17:25:49 <AndyS> q+
17:26:07 <ora> ack AndyS
17:26:10 <AndyS>     << :s :p [ foaf:name "Alice" ; foaf:birthday "1999-04-01" ] >> :src :someGraph
17:26:27 <pchampin> q+
17:26:27 <olaf> AndyS: My problem with the feature is the example in the chat because
17:26:57 <olaf> ... that one asserts into the graph the triple ... (?) as a side effect.
17:27:15 <gkellogg> q+
17:27:24 <james> q+
17:27:24 <ora> ack pchampin
17:27:31 <olaf> ... The issue for me is the fact that we may have such side effects.
17:28:02 <olaf> pchampin: Response to AndyS, it depends on how we define the syntax (shorthands)
17:28:22 <olaf> ... but I don't like that
17:28:22 <AndyS> q+ to response to PA
17:28:34 <tl> q+
17:28:36 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:28:39 <tl> q-
17:29:01 <olaf> ... the fact that there is an ambiguity makes me contra this feature
17:29:32 <olaf> gkellogg: ... Turtle ... (?)
17:29:36 <olaf> ... Use of collection is even more problematic
17:30:01 <ora> q+
17:30:03 <olaf> ... overloading other parsing structures is complicating things
17:30:32 <olaf> ... every triple coming out of that would be reified using the same reifier
17:30:32 <niklasl> q+
17:30:39 <ora> ack james
17:30:41 <niklasl> +2 to gkellogg
17:30:44 <olaf> ... While that is consistent, it is problematic.
17:31:18 <olaf> james: The question coming up signals that there is an expectation of this feature
17:32:13 <olaf> ... There should be a decision on that which is consistent with what one would expect in NQuads
17:32:24 <ora> ack AndyS
17:32:24 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to response to PA
17:32:58 <olaf> AndyS: I agree with pchampin's analysis, but Dörte didn't see a problems with the asserted  triples
17:32:58 <ora> ack ora
17:33:06 <olaf> ... So, it is two different viewpoints.
17:33:12 <pchampin> which demonstrates that this is highly ambiguous!
17:33:29 <olaf> ora: I would like to see an example of how one would do it if the list already exists.
17:33:47 <olaf> ... Because the list is a blank node.
17:34:04 <olaf> ... Probably the same issue as if we would have literals that refer to blank nodes.
17:34:06 <ora> ack niklasl
17:34:27 <olaf> niklasl: THere are intersting things to explore here.
17:34:38 <olaf> ... but I agree with AndyS and gkellogg
17:35:01 <niklasl> :s :p [ foaf:name "Alice" ; foaf:birthday "1999-04-01" ] {| :src :someGraph |} .
17:35:07 <olaf> ... I would not like to see support for this notation, because of time
17:35:16 <olaf> ... time constraints
17:35:44 <olaf> ... You can have a name for the whole "chunk"
17:36:12 <olaf> ora: Is more investigation needed?
17:36:24 <niklasl> defer-next-version ?
17:36:36 <pchampin> q?
17:36:42 <olaf> ... Personally, I am still a little confused; in particular of the downstream effects
17:37:19 <olaf> ... Should we table it as something that we may come back to later
17:37:54 <olaf> gkellogg: Yes, not take it up now. It cannot be removed.
17:37:58 <niklasl> If we keep the current disallowing of [] and () in << ... >>, there is no ambiguity.
17:38:01 <pchampin> q+
17:38:09 <olaf> ora: I am leaning to disallowing it.
17:38:10 <ora> ack pchampin
17:38:32 <olaf> pchampin: As gkellogg pointed out, it is still possible for us or a future WG to come back to it.
17:38:50 <tl> q+
17:38:50 <olaf> ... So, should we close the issue or mark it as possible future work?
17:39:05 <AndyS> q+
17:39:13 <olaf> ... Or third option is that someone thinks it is urgent and needs to go into our REC
17:39:15 <ora> ack tl
17:39:33 <ora> ack AndyS
17:39:39 <olaf> tl: How can we allow this but not multiple triples? That's why we shouldn't allow it.
17:39:45 <olaf> AndyS: I agree with tl
17:40:14 <olaf> ... We have a different syntax for sets of triples, and this one wouldn't be the one I would start with.
17:40:24 <tl> s/That's why we shouldn't allow it./
17:40:42 <niklasl> +1, future syntax for "reification blocks" *might* be a thing. (But let's not promise that.)
17:40:44 <olaf> AndyS: We do already allow one reifier for multiple triples.
17:41:11 <olaf> ... as enrico was eager to have.
17:41:34 <ora> PROPOSAL: Close issue https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/132
17:41:34 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/132 -> Issue 132 Turtle Grammar: Collections and blank node property lists in triple terms (by doerthe) [needs discussion]
17:41:36 <pchampin> +1
17:41:38 <olaf> ora: Are you saying that we already have a way to implement this?
17:41:38 <ora> +1
17:41:41 <gkellogg> +1
17:41:42 <niklasl> +1
17:41:48 <olaf> AndyS: I guess, yes.
17:41:48 <james> +0
17:41:50 <fsasaki> +1
17:41:52 <tl> +0
17:41:54 <Dominik_T> +0.9
17:41:54 <olaf> +1
17:41:55 <AndyS> +1
17:41:56 <eBremer> +1
17:41:58 <gtw> +1
17:41:59 <TallTed> +0
17:42:04 <ktk> +1
17:42:14 <Souri> +1
17:42:23 <AZ> +0
17:42:26 <pfps> +0
17:42:52 <ora> RESOLVED: Close issue https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/132
17:42:52 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/132 -> Issue 132 Turtle Grammar: Collections and blank node property lists in triple terms (by doerthe) [needs discussion]
17:43:02 <james> q+
17:43:04 <olaf> ora: Okay, we can close this.
17:43:07 <tl> q+
17:43:12 <ora> ack james
17:44:02 <olaf> james: I would ask that the authors of the Turtle doc make sure that the readers are aware that there is something in NQuads that cannot be written in Turtle.
17:44:06 <niklasl> In triples. No need for quads.
17:44:06 <tl> q-
17:44:21 <ktk> Zakim, next item
17:44:21 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Streamline Turtle-star syntactic sugar and future-proof it for graphs -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/131 -- taken up [from agendabot]
17:44:26 <olaf> gkellogg: Can you raise an issue spelling out what you think the problem is.
17:44:28 <tl> q+
17:44:31 <olaf> james: okay
17:44:50 <olaf> tl: This one is a bit older.
17:44:52 <ora> ack tl
17:44:57 <olaf> ... Two concerns
17:45:35 <olaf> ... One is that the syntax looks bewildering for someone who is not used to it.
17:45:41 <olaf> ... Not very appealing.
17:45:53 <olaf> ... The annotation syntax is also not nice.
17:46:19 <olaf> ... Second, there should be a star * in the syntax
17:46:31 <olaf> ... because that were it comes from.
17:46:37 <ora> q?
17:47:00 <pchampin> except that <* ... *> does not work, it can be interpreted as a relative IRI (in some cases)
17:47:03 <olaf> ... The other thing is that I am troubled that the annotation syntax uses curly braces
17:47:18 <pchampin> q+
17:47:27 <olaf> ... because they usually have a different meaning in other cases in which it is used.
17:47:56 <olaf> ... We should have re-appearing symbols, if they mean the same thing.
17:48:16 <olaf> ... I propose to use square brackets.
17:48:31 <olaf> ... Third thing, triple terms in subject position.
17:48:51 <AndyS> +1 to pchampin "<* ... *> does not work"
17:48:52 <olaf> ... Maybe we (james and I) overdesigned the thing a bit
17:49:11 <niklasl> +1 <*:s:p:o*>
17:49:28 <niklasl> s/+1 </+1 to pchampin </
17:49:39 <james> q+
17:49:45 <olaf> ... Alternative option: if there is an identifier, it is an occurrence; if there is none, it is a triple term
17:49:57 <ora> ack pchampin
17:50:07 <olaf> ... My hope is to have another discussion about the syntax.
17:50:26 <olaf> pchampin: One of your arguments was that the current syntax is not ideal,
17:50:31 <olaf> ... to which I agree.
17:50:38 <tl> q+
17:50:43 <olaf> ... Yet, it has been around for a number of years.
17:51:01 <olaf> ... A large part of the community has become used to it. Changing it would be disruptive.
17:51:32 <ora> ack james
17:51:35 <olaf> ... What we have now has been carefully crafted, and works (no conflict with other uses of these characters).
17:52:48 <ora> ack tl
17:52:48 <pchampin> q+
17:52:49 <AndyS> q+
17:52:49 <olaf> james: The notation that is much clearer and less likely ... as in this case ... would be more beneficial
17:53:07 <pchampin> q-
17:53:24 <olaf> tl: There are various proposals, not throw out all right away.
17:53:47 <AndyS> q-
17:54:00 <olaf> ... Regarding the argument that it has been around, the meaning of the syntax has changed over time.
17:54:13 <olaf> ... The further we get away from such confusion, the better.
17:54:29 <tl> q+
17:54:33 <olaf> ora: Is there some other problem with the syntax, apart from confusion for users?
17:54:35 <ora> ack tl
17:55:05 <niklasl> q+
17:55:06 <olaf> tl: The curly braces should remain only for graphs / sets of triples.
17:55:22 <olaf> ... I prefer square brackets with stars instead.
17:55:33 <ora> ack niklasl
17:55:39 <olaf> ... I don't want to go into the details here.
17:55:52 <olaf> niklasl: key question is whether we can actually change things.
17:56:08 <gkellogg> q+
17:56:18 <ora> ack gkellogg
17:56:24 <olaf> gkellogg: Grammar design is not trivial.
17:56:28 <niklasl> q+
17:56:47 <olaf> ... We spent months and months finding little issues in the grammar that we have now.
17:57:22 <olaf> ... I don't think the triple term grammar is ugly, in particular because we don't expect them to be used largely.
17:57:24 <tl> q+
17:57:56 <olaf> ... The time for making large changes to the syntax is passed. We need to move on; lots to do.
17:58:03 <niklasl> q-
17:58:06 <olaf> ... and Turtle is just one syntax.
17:58:20 <pchampin> +1 to gkellogg: those proposal are great for an alternative syntax (which could also get rid of many other legacy oddities of Turtle)
17:58:23 <olaf> ... There will be JSON-LD, etc.
17:58:31 <ora> ack tl
17:58:39 <olaf> ora: I am also hesitant to start redesigning things.
17:58:50 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/131#issuecomment-2430152565
17:58:50 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/131 -> Issue 131 Streamline Turtle-star syntactic sugar and future-proof it for graphs (by rat10) [needs discussion]
17:58:57 <olaf> tl: You said we should postpone discussing the syntax.
17:59:09 <AndyS> q+
17:59:15 <ora> ack AndyS
17:59:25 <olaf> ... I am really pi**ed if this is the (first and) last time this will be discussed in the meeting,
17:59:54 <tl> s/pi**ed/unsatisfied
17:59:58 <olaf> AndyS: We have decided to use GitHub issues for discussions.
18:00:28 <olaf> ... We really are out of time on this, as many people have mentioned in the issues list.
18:00:51 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:00:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
18:01:07 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:01:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
18:01:54 <pchampin> present+
18:01:55 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
18:01:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
18:02:18 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
18:03:11 <pfps> pfps has left #rdf-star
18:24:55 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:33:59 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:06:42 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:27:52 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:41:50 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:56:03 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star