14:15:58 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star 14:16:02 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/03/07-rdf-star-irc 14:16:02 Zakim has joined #rdf-star 14:16:38 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:16:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 14:16:44 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:17:16 meeting: RDF-star WG Semantics TF 14:17:18 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/59c97770-65f5-4c46-9d03-86fb61ff2bbc/20250307T100000/ 14:17:19 clear agenda 14:17:19 agenda+ discuss the -> open issues https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues and -> pull requests https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pulls in RDF-semantics as suggested in -> this email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2025Mar/0005.html by pfps. 14:18:00 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/03/06-rdf-star-minutes.html 14:18:02 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/03/13-rdf-star-minutes.html 14:18:43 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 14:54:06 pfps has joined #rdf-star 14:54:14 present+ 14:56:45 AndyS has joined #rdf-star 14:57:00 niklasl has joined #rdf-star 14:58:47 enrico has joined #rdf-star 14:58:54 present+ 14:59:47 tl has joined #rdf-star 15:01:31 ora has joined #rdf-star 15:02:26 I have to leave in about 70 minutes. 15:02:43 present+ 15:02:49 present+ 15:02:49 present+ 15:02:59 present+ 15:03:04 doerthe has joined #rdf-star 15:03:22 present+ 15:03:26 Zakim, open first item 15:03:26 I don't understand 'open first item', TallTed 15:03:31 Zakim, open next item 15:03:31 agendum 1 -- discuss the -> open issues https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues and -> pull requests https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pulls in RDF-semantics as 15:03:34 ... suggested in -> this email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2025Mar/0005.html by pfps. -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:06:36 chair+ 15:06:50 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130 15:06:50 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130 -> Issue 130 vocabulary to refer to the individual nodes in a triple term (by rat10) [needs discussion] 15:07:11 This could have impact on semantics if <<(:a :b :c)>> rdf:subject :a. is an axiomatic triple. 15:07:23 q+ 15:07:25 Souri has joined #rdf-star 15:07:31 present+ 15:07:47 ack tl 15:09:09 q+ 15:09:09 q+ 15:09:16 ack pfps 15:09:34 q+ 15:10:33 ack enrico 15:12:26 ack doerthe 15:12:55 q+ 15:13:09 q+ 15:13:12 ack niklasl 15:13:57 q- 15:14:04 q+ 15:14:16 ack tl 15:14:53 I think it was confused with https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 15:14:54 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 -> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [needs discussion] 15:15:19 so that's a consensus that this issue, if ever addressed, cannot have any semantics impact 15:15:23 I agree 15:15:56 I find hard to see that it shouldn't have semantics. So, it is just a usage pattern personal to tl 15:16:14 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/87 15:16:15 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/87 -> Issue 87 A formal background to unify triples and triple terms (by franconi) [spec:substantive] 15:16:34 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/07-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS 15:16:40 Zakim, next item 15:16:40 I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, ora 15:17:15 q+ 15:17:22 I think that this proposal has flaws and should not be added to Semantics at this late stage. 15:17:22 ack enrico 15:18:40 This is bring added to the spec via https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/91 15:18:41 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/91 -> Pull Request 91 A formal background to unify triples and triple terms (by franconi) [spec:substantive] 15:19:52 q+ 15:20:41 ack doerthe 15:20:52 if this is only adding new stuff that doesn't affect the real semantics then we can let it go for now 15:22:49 I am all for merging 91 (it is very useful to explain things). 15:23:29 It is the only way to explain what where doing... 15:24:32 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114 15:24:33 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/114 -> Issue 114 Un-star operation to support RDF Dataset Canonicalization? (by niklasl) [needs discussion] 15:24:53 I believe that this issue should not affect Semantics, either directly or indirectly through any changes that it would make in Concepts. The meeting could vote to make this a requirement of unstar. 15:25:08 but let's please fix the one comment I had for #91 :) 15:25:09 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/91 -> CLOSED Issue 91 JSON values (by pfps) [propose closing] 15:25:18 q+ 15:25:31 q+ 15:26:29 ack niklasl 15:26:29 +1 to pfps - define unstar as just a mechanical transformation with no effect on semantics 15:26:36 s|#91|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/91 | 15:28:50 RDF Concepts section 8: "the output graph is not semantically equivalent to the input graph" 15:29:05 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms #49 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 15:29:05 I believe that this issue is already handled by the semantics in Semantics. Changes are, of course, possible. The meeting could vote to close the issue based on this. 15:29:06 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/49 -> Issue 49 Define an interpretation of Triple Terms (by niklasl) [needs discussion] 15:29:06 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/49 -> CLOSED Action 49 put in the repo the "source of truth" for labels (on pchampin) due 13 Apr 2023 15:31:08 q- 15:33:07 OK, consensus is that anything done for this won't affect semantics 15:33:58 what properties can or should link to triple terms? https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/127 15:33:59 I believe that this issue has been resolved by the wording about rdf:reifies in Concepts and there are currently no implications on Semantics. The meeting could vote to recommend that the issue be closed based on this. 15:33:59 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/127 -> Issue 127 what properties can or should link to triple terms? (by afs) [needs discussion] 15:35:09 q+ 15:35:16 q+ 15:35:17 ack AndyS 15:36:05 q+ 15:36:07 ack tl 15:36:45 ack enrico 15:37:48 q+ 15:37:55 q+ 15:38:10 ack niklasl 15:39:16 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/07-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS 15:39:22 ack pfps 15:39:23 as far as semantics is concerned the only effect on Semantics is that rdf:reifies has a built-in range? 15:40:55 q+ 15:41:10 ack niklasl 15:43:05 map the annotation syntax to rdfs:states https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 15:43:05 This is an alternative way to do annotated triples. It's currently not in the documents. 15:43:06 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 -> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing] 15:44:42 consensus is that this won't be done 15:44:55 the change to replace "must" with "should" for ill-typed term values should be reverted pending further discussion https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/147 15:44:56 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/147 -> Issue 147 the change to replace "must" with "should" for ill-typed term values should be reverted pending further discussion (by lisp) [needs discussion] [spec:substantive] 15:45:23 I believe that there are no effects to the semantics arising from this issue, as the RDF semantics is just about satisfaction and entailment and should not be concerned with other behaviour. 15:47:46 q+ 15:47:58 ack TallTed 15:49:14 q+ 15:49:19 ack AndyS 15:49:24 consensus is that there will not be any semantics effects 15:49:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/07-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS 15:49:51 Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/61 15:49:51 My view is that this is not something that should go in Semantics. 15:49:52 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/61 -> Issue 61 Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies (by niklasl) [propose closing] [spec:editorial] 15:50:11 q+ 15:50:27 ack niklasl 15:51:11 consensus is to put this in Primer or elsewhere particularly with move of some other stuff 15:51:33 consensus is that in any case there is not effect on the formal semantics 15:52:33 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/07-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS 15:52:39 completeness of entailment https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/76 15:52:39 I created a PR (#101) that qualifies everything. I think we can merge the PR. Hopefully we can iron out enough of the above issues that at least the interpolation lemma can be proven. 15:52:39 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/76 -> Issue 76 completeness of entailment (by pfps) [needs discussion] [spec:substantive] 15:52:39 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/101 -> CLOSED Action 101 add the rdf-star-wg repo to the dashboard [1] (on pchampin) due 2023-12-21 15:54:34 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/152 -> Issue 152 Explain how classic RDF reification relates to triple terms and rdf:reifies (by niklasl) [propose closing] 15:54:56 maybe we could discuss it next week? 15:57:27 PR #91 to be merged as it is approved and related to semantics 15:57:27 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/91 -> CLOSED Issue 91 JSON values (by pfps) [propose closing] 15:57:41 identity and equality of datatype values https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/92 15:57:41 I think the task force should state that it is important to make clear what RDF equality means between literal values, i.e., that the denotations of +0 and -0 in any RDF datatype that includes IEEE floating point are not equal as far as RDF is concerned even though they compare equal in IEEE floating point. 15:57:42 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/92 -> Issue 92 identity and equality of datatype values (by pfps) [spec:editorial] 15:58:35 https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#double 15:58:37 q+ 15:58:51 ack AndyS 15:59:14 Equality is identity, except that 0 = −0 (although they are not identical) and NaN ≠ NaN (although NaN is of course identical to itself). 16:01:15 :) 16:02:01 so it is the feeling that there should be no more changes to the formal semantics 16:02:54 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/91#discussion_r1957949613 16:02:54 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/91 -> Pull Request 91 A formal background to unify triples and triple terms (by franconi) [spec:substantive] 16:07:49 Once PR 91 and issues 98/85/76 are closed, the text of Semantics can be considered ready for review (note: these issues are only about remove text) 16:09:12 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 16:09:48 zakim, end meeting 16:09:48 As of this point the attendees have been pfps, enrico, TallTed, tl, ora, AndyS, doerthe, Souri 16:09:50 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:09:51 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/07-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim 16:09:56 I am happy to have been of service, AndyS; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:09:57 Zakim has left #rdf-star 16:10:12 rrsagent, please excuse us 16:10:12 I see no action items 16:10:35 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star 16:10:35 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/03/07-rdf-star-irc 16:10:40 scribe: ad-hoc 16:10:51 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 16:12:33 These minutes could be cleaned up a lot, best with access to the IRC log. Doing it through bot commands would be quite painful and time consuming. Maybe pchampin can do something when he returns. 16:12:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 16:12:45 RRSAgent, bye 16:12:52 RRSAgent, set logs public 16:12:55 RRSAgent, bye 16:12:55 I see no action items