15:59:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:59:11 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-rdf-star-irc
15:59:22 <ktk> meeting:  RDF-star WG biweekly focused meeting
15:59:29 <ktk> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0046d666-d3e8-4032-89e4-8b9a3e6ff40f/20250327T120000/
15:59:30 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:59:30 <agendabot> agenda+ RDF 1.2 Semantics document review -> 1 https://w3c.github.io/rdf-semantics/spec/
15:59:30 <agendabot> agenda+ Streamline Turtle-star syntactic sugar and future-proof it for graphs -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/131
15:59:31 <agendabot> agenda+ Addressing SPARQL EXISTS errata -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/156
15:59:32 <agendabot> agenda+ Proposed closing: map the annotation syntax to rdfs:states -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128
15:59:40 <james> james has joined #rdf-star
15:59:43 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:59:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
15:59:46 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF-star Semantics TF -- 2025-03-27 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0046d666-d3e8-4032-89e4-8b9a3e6ff40f/20250327T120000/
15:59:48 <ktk> RRSAgent, make log public
15:59:52 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
15:59:54 <ktk> present+
16:00:08 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:00:18 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/03/21-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:00:18 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/03/28-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:00:18 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
16:00:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:00:27 <enrico> present+
16:00:27 <gtw> present+
16:00:27 <TallTed> present+
16:00:38 <james> present+
16:00:41 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:00:51 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
16:01:05 <tl> present+
16:01:10 <ktk> regrets+ AZ
16:01:14 <ktk> regrets+ pchampin
16:01:35 <niklasl> present+
16:01:45 <AndyS> present+
16:01:49 <ora> present+
16:01:52 <ora> chair+
16:02:28 <niklasl> scribe+
16:02:44 <olaf> present+
16:03:16 <Tpt> present+
16:03:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:03:53 <ktk> Zakim, open item 1
16:03:53 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- RDF 1.2 Semantics document review -> 1 https://w3c.github.io/rdf-semantics/spec/ -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:03:57 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:04:00 <Souri> present+
16:04:07 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:04:14 <pfps> present+
16:04:18 <pfps> q+
16:04:25 <niklasl> ora: Thoughts on the semantics document?
16:04:27 <ora> ack pfps
16:04:56 <niklasl> pfps: Not many comments. The interpolation lemma remains to be proved. We probably shouldn't move before that.
16:05:05 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:05:13 <doerthe> present+
16:05:23 <niklasl> ... This document also depends on Concepts, which should ve considered for advancement as well.
16:05:54 <niklasl> ... We could conditionally advance Semantics w/o the interpolation lemma.
16:05:58 <AndyS> q+
16:06:03 <ora> ack AndyS
16:06:05 <niklasl> ora: How close are we re. Concepts?
16:06:37 <niklasl> AndyS: The SemTF also discussed that there needs to be tests before advancing semantics.
16:06:53 <pfps> q+ to talk about Concepts
16:06:57 <niklasl> ... I also thought we'd need Concepts and possibly N-triples prior to Semantics
16:06:57 <ora> ack pfps
16:06:57 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about Concepts
16:07:02 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:07:26 <niklasl> pfps: Re. Concepts - it seems to normatively depend on every surface syntax. That seems unlikely.
16:07:40 <niklasl> ... There is also the blocker re. rdf:JSON on Concepts.
16:07:40 <gkellogg> present+
16:08:04 <niklasl> ora: What is needed to accept a fix?
16:08:28 <AndyS> q+ to ask about dependencies of Concepts on syntaxes
16:08:32 <ora> ack AndyS
16:08:32 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about dependencies of Concepts on syntaxes
16:08:38 <niklasl> pfps: There is disagreement re. where external datatypes should be defined [?]
16:09:25 <niklasl> ... There's a section for normative references in Concepts. It seems unlikely that there are normative sections in Concepts that uses N-Quads; or even Turtle.
16:09:48 <niklasl> AndyS: There is mention of them, but probably a normative dependency.
16:09:58 <gkellogg> q+
16:10:00 <niklasl> pfps: But they are in the normative sections.
16:10:14 <niklasl> s/are in the/listed in the/
16:10:18 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:10:52 <niklasl> gkellogg: Syntaxes appear as examples in conformant sections, but references should be informative.
16:11:02 <pfps> The issue for rdf:JSON is https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/116
16:11:02 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/116 -> Issue 116 rdf:JSON value space incorrect (by pfps) [ms:CR] [spec:bug]
16:11:26 <niklasl> ... The easy fix is to make references informative (use a question mark before)
16:11:41 <niklasl> ora: So the rdf:JSON issue is the only blocker?
16:11:53 <niklasl> pfps: No, 23 issues are open on Concepts.
16:12:01 <niklasl> ... We could to a review on concepts.
16:12:50 <niklasl> ora: Can people take a look at the rdf:JSON issue and make up their minds?
16:12:50 <gkellogg> q+
16:12:53 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:13:58 <pfps> q+ to talk about RDF datatypes
16:14:05 <niklasl> gkellogg: The points of disagreement appears to be in the use of INFRA maps for describing JSON objects (regarding order and equality).
16:14:10 <ora> ack pfps
16:14:10 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about RDF datatypes
16:15:03 <niklasl> pfps: I disagree. For an RDF datatype you need a value space. the values space for JSON does not include ordered maps. So for definitions you have to be super-picky about definitions.
16:15:25 <niklasl> ... This can be fixed by a short definition of unordered maps
16:15:48 <niklasl> gkellogg: And INFRA maps are ordered, so we would go against that by defining our own maps.
16:16:23 <niklasl> ... My point is to point out what the contention is. It would be good for other members to chime in here.
16:16:42 <niklasl> ... My own position is to stick with the INFRA definition of maps, which is ordered.
16:16:48 <pfps> in the end the value space for rdf:JSON MUST include unordered maps and MUST NOT include ordered maps
16:17:12 <niklasl> ora: So either define our own map to use, or use INFRA maps (but say "we don't think of them as ordered").
16:17:24 <niklasl> s/")./")?/
16:17:41 <pfps> they can include equivalence classes of ordered maps under an equivalence relation that makes two maps equivalent if they differ only in order
16:17:43 <niklasl> ... Both seem to require new definitional language IIUC.
16:18:12 <niklasl> gkellogg: There is language in there now to get around the fact that INFRA maps are ordered. We may need more language around that.
16:18:31 <niklasl> ... Many other W3C specs use INFRA. We would be at odds with that if we deviate.
16:18:46 <niklasl> ... More opinions are needed.
16:19:06 <Tpt> q+
16:19:15 <ora> ack Tpt
16:19:37 <niklasl> tpt: Definitions should be unordered, since JSON is unordered.
16:20:00 <niklasl> ... JSON-LD refers to JSON C14N.
16:20:50 <Tpt> link: https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#the-rdf-json-datatype
16:21:02 <AndyS> Semantics has a normative reference to Turtle 1.1
16:21:02 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:21:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
16:21:10 <olaf> q+
16:21:10 <niklasl> ora: Make this a point of discussion in two weeks?
16:21:13 <ora> ack olaf
16:21:33 <Tpt> s/since JSON is unordered/since JavaScript objects are unordered/
16:21:49 <niklasl> olaf: I'm more on pfps' side, for a cleaner definition. But I am fine with anything that moves us forward.
16:22:15 <gkellogg> q+
16:22:21 <niklasl> ora: Anything else on the Semantic spec?
16:22:25 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:22:29 <niklasl> AndyS: A reference to Turtle 1.1....
16:22:56 <niklasl> gkellogg: More editorial things; some section [3?] may be turned informative
16:23:35 <niklasl> ... acknowledgements for RDF 1.2, and other editorial things.
16:23:41 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
16:24:26 <niklasl> pfps: We need to normatively define what a semantic extension is (re. section 3)
16:25:17 <niklasl> gkellogg: See the common subdirectory (from rdf-common)
16:26:38 <niklasl> Everybody: check the spelling of your names in rdf-common (and W3C profile) ;)
16:26:47 <eBremer> present+
16:27:49 <niklasl> pfps: There is a good pointer (from enrico) for working on the interpolation lemma
16:29:46 <ktk> q?
16:29:50 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:29:50 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Streamline Turtle-star syntactic sugar and future-proof it for graphs -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/131 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:29:58 <niklasl> ora: So, for Semantics, some editorial and interpolation lemma work, and next time [in two weeks] we'll discuss rdf:JSON
16:30:01 <tl> q+
16:30:43 <ora> ack tl
16:31:00 <niklasl> tl: A summary posted today. I think my proposal still stands. Syntactic issues appears resolved. Last one is minor, can be used with required blank space.
16:31:22 <niklasl> ... It's about illegal in an IRI but legal in Turtle/SPARQL
16:31:35 <niklasl> ... If you see a star, that's something about an annotation.
16:31:53 <niklasl> ... I would like to get rid of the curly braces, as it is reserved for graphs.
16:32:07 <niklasl> ... The star is nicely visible.
16:32:12 <tl> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/131
16:32:13 <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]
16:32:23 <niklasl> ... See the initial comment.
16:33:14 <niklasl> ... James had another proposal, closer to what we have now, but get's rid of the curly braces.  Not as distruptive.
16:33:39 <TallTed> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/131#issuecomment-2757703416
16:33:50 <niklasl> (link to summary)
16:34:17 <pfps> I looked at some papers by Jos and they all say Jos De Roo, so this should be changed.
16:34:20 <james> q+
16:34:22 <pfps> q+
16:34:28 <ora> ack james
16:34:54 <niklasl> james: My intent is to understand what a simpler alternative could be.
16:35:33 <niklasl> ... the chevron and the chevron+parenthesis seems to have led to confusion. The LLM I asked concluded the same thing.
16:35:59 <niklasl> ... Would preclude fewer things in the future, and I would prefer fewer tokens.
16:36:20 <niklasl> ... and align the annotation block with those.
16:36:36 <ora> ack pfps
16:36:36 <niklasl> ... I understand the star preference but wonder if that visual prominence is necessary.
16:37:10 <niklasl> pfps: Re. the angles vs. the curly braces. They bracket different things. So it's not helpful to make them more visually similar.
16:37:27 <niklasl> ... People might end up putting brackets for annotations around triples.
16:37:53 <niklasl> ... I don't like two charactes as token, but it is reasonably warranted here.
16:38:18 <niklasl> ... The three-character syntax is discouraging, which we want; we discourage its use.
16:38:34 <niklasl> ... I think what we have is viable and doesn't break too many possibilities.
16:38:36 <niklasl> q+
16:38:54 <ora> ack niklasl
16:39:12 <ktk> scribe+
16:39:30 <niklasl> I agree with pfps that annotation syntax is too different from triple forms for them to benefit much from the use of similar delimiters (I think it would even make them harder to distinguish).
16:40:42 <ktk> niklasl: I'm symphatetic with the issue that curly braces might be problematic. They are not solely used for graph purposes in SPARQL. They are mostly used for triple groups of various form. For graphs, you need to use the GRAPH keyword. They are also used for OPTIONAL and VALUES.
16:40:56 <ktk> ... so it's not the strongest of arguments that they are reserved for graphs.
16:41:13 <ktk> ... Also with Notation-3, that's not really aligned with SPARQL anyway.
16:41:42 <ktk> ... Using blank node brackets makes it hard to distinct annotations with blank nodes.
16:42:04 <ktk> ... I don't see a problem with the current syntax, I'm used it it after using them in the past years.
16:42:58 <niklasl> scribe+
16:43:02 <ktk> ... Given how hard it is to come to an agreement and avoid all the various collisions and pitfalls, I think what we have now is validated for many years and it works. There is no collision.
16:43:03 <tl> q+
16:43:15 <ora> ack tl
16:43:17 <niklasl> ora: And we won't have evidence on parser ambiguity.
16:43:22 <ktk> ora: we don't have evidence that the current syntax leads to problems when writing parsers.
16:43:38 <ktk> s/ora: we don't have evidence that the current syntax leads to problems when writing parsers.//
16:43:43 <niklasl> tl: My proposal is for square-bracket + star, so it is different from triple terms.
16:43:43 <ktk> scribe-
16:44:06 <ktk> s/I agree with pfps that annotation syntax is too different from triple forms for them to benefit much from the use of similar delimiters (I think it would even make them harder to distinguish).
16:44:11 <niklasl> ... people mix these things and should have cut down the options; but we're past that.
16:44:17 <niklasl> ... I still think my proposal is best.
16:44:23 <AndyS> q+
16:44:29 <ora> ack AndyS
16:44:56 <niklasl> AndyS: I agree with pfps summary. I particularly don't like open angle brackets for annotation  blocks. It's not a term.
16:45:22 <niklasl> ... I don't think the summary reflects the thread. Such as regarding SPARQL.
16:45:31 <ora> q+
16:45:34 <niklasl> ... JSON also uses curly braces for other things.
16:45:34 <ora> ack ora
16:45:57 <gkellogg> q+
16:45:57 <niklasl> ora: I don't sense strong support for the proposal to change syntax.
16:46:27 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:46:31 <niklasl> tl: I support a vote and wouldn't vote a strong plus/minus one.
16:46:56 <niklasl> gkellogg: I think we need a vote; there's been a lot of testing; changes would be disruptive.
16:47:26 <niklasl> ... Any character within ASCII does run into issues. Unless we use emojis there are no perfect solutions.
16:47:48 <ora> PROPOSAL: Adopt Thomas' proposal on syntax change
16:48:03 <tl> +1
16:48:15 <pfps> -0.9
16:48:18 <doerthe> 0
16:48:18 <gkellogg> -0.5
16:48:21 <enrico> 0
16:48:21 <james> 0
16:48:22 <ora> -0.9
16:48:24 <gtw> -0.9
16:48:25 <niklasl> -0.9
16:48:26 <Souri> -0.5
16:48:27 <ktk> -0.5
16:48:27 <Tpt> -0.8
16:48:30 <olaf> -0.5
16:48:30 <TallTed> -0.8
16:48:31 <AndyS> -0.99
16:48:33 <eBremer> -0.3
16:49:07 <ora> RESOLVED: We will not adopt Thomas' proposal on syntax change
16:49:26 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:49:26 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Addressing SPARQL EXISTS errata -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/156 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:50:25 <niklasl> ora: This will be a meta-discussion on whether we're going pursuing a solution.
16:50:25 <ktk> q+
16:50:33 <ora> ack ktk
16:50:59 <pfps> +1 to adrian
16:51:05 <niklasl> ktk: I propose to not talk about this unless we're really done on all RDF-star things on all required documents
16:51:06 <niklasl> +1
16:51:11 <james> q+
16:51:17 <ora> ack james
16:51:37 <tl> +1
16:51:46 <niklasl> james: I agree with this. This is not the time to do it.
16:51:53 <Tpt> q+
16:51:56 <AndyS> q+
16:51:59 <ora> ack Tpt
16:52:26 <james> q+
16:52:27 <niklasl> tpt: It seems to me we already have a strong proposal.
16:52:32 <ora> ack AndyS
16:53:17 <niklasl> AndyS: It has been on the query issues list for a long time, and discussed it on TPAC. We can make more progress on the list and on github.
16:53:46 <Tpt> s/proposal./. Hence, this might not be a real distraction./
16:53:49 <niklasl> ... My discomfort is the suggestion for people to focus on particular issues. In a WG that's not a management's role.
16:53:56 <niklasl> ora: But prioritization is.
16:54:00 <ora> ack james
16:54:00 <niklasl> AndyS: Absolutely.
16:54:32 <Tpt> q+
16:54:37 <niklasl> james: If te chairs decide that other things come first, why does that require people to work on specific things?
16:54:45 <niklasl> s/If te/If the/
16:55:18 <ora> ack Tpt
16:55:20 <niklasl> AndyS: We can do things in sequence, but objecting to do the SPARQL thing (as out of scope) I disagree with.
16:55:29 <ktk> q+
16:55:35 <ora> ack ktk
16:55:51 <niklasl> tpt: Errata is allowed in the Charter and this has been in the errata on SPARQL for quite some time.
16:56:21 <TallTed> q+
16:56:22 <niklasl> ktk: My proposal is only to move forward with the rest, not to discourage further work on resolving this.
16:56:30 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/pull/177
16:56:30 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/pull/177 -> Pull Request 177 Definitions for Values Insertion (by afs)
16:56:49 <niklasl> tpt: Makes sense. We prioritize getting the RDF specs done, and then do this on top.
16:56:54 <james> q+
16:56:58 <niklasl> ktk: No objections to that.
16:57:18 <ora> ack TallTed
16:57:32 <niklasl> ora: So is it OK to consider this a prioritization, not about resource allocation.
16:57:35 <niklasl> AndyS: yes
16:58:00 <niklasl> TallTed: This seems ripe for a Task Force, which can work with this and then present this to the wider group.
16:58:14 <ora> ack james
16:58:58 <niklasl> james: I concur with that suggestion. I would very much like to resolve this; it is a deficiency in SPARQL. My objection is that it involves more than EXISTS and would require more time.
16:59:23 <Tpt> And there is the follow up https://github.com/w3c/sparql-dev/blob/main/SEP/SEP-0007/sep-0007.md
16:59:25 <AndyS> q+
16:59:25 <niklasl> ora: Next time we can discuss the formation of this Task Force.
16:59:34 <ora> ack AndyS
17:00:08 <niklasl> AndyS: I just point to the PR. The SPARQL EXISTS CG did not publish anything, so we could not peruse that here.
17:00:27 <niklasl> ... I've put material into the PR to make it legal for this WG to use.
17:02:00 <TallTed> s|next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/03/28-rdf-star-minutes.html|next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/04/03-rdf-star-minutes.html
17:02:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:02:25 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
17:06:27 <ktk> s/a strong ./a strong proposal./
17:07:43 <ktk> RRSAgent, end meeting
17:07:43 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'end meeting', ktk.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:09:44 <ktk> Zakim, bye
17:09:44 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been TallTed, enrico, pfps, tl, Souri, doerthe, niklasl, pchampin, AndyS, ktk, gtw, james, ora, olaf, Tpt, gkellogg, eBremer
17:09:44 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
17:09:53 <ktk> RRSAgent, bye
17:09:53 <RRSAgent> I see no action items