15:59:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:59:53 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-irc
16:00:00 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-star
16:00:08 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
16:00:08 <gkellogg> present+
16:00:23 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
16:00:24 <TallTed> present+ TallTed, james
16:00:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:00:38 <gtw> present+
16:00:39 <ora> present+
16:00:41 <Tpt> present+
16:00:44 <ora> chair+
16:01:03 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:01:08 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:01:17 <AndyS> present+
16:01:17 <pchampin> present+
16:01:17 <pfps> present+
16:01:19 <olaf> present+
16:01:19 <pchampin> scribe+
16:01:26 <tl> present+
16:01:42 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/05/08-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:01:42 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/05/16-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:02:00 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3145be7b-99e7-49af-90b0-aee845dc7b2d/20250515T120000/
16:02:00 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:02:00 <agendabot> agenda+ naming RDF 1.2 without triple terms -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/135
16:02:00 <agendabot> agenda+ Define RDF 1.2 Basic profile -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/70
16:02:00 <agendabot> agenda+ Different parsing of the same absolute IRI with or without base IRI -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/89
16:02:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Decide names and namespace for constituent properties of classic triple terms -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/170
16:02:05 <agendabot> agenda+ vocabulary to refer to the individual nodes in a triple term -> 5 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130
16:02:17 <TallTed> meeting: RDF-star WG biweekly focused meeting
16:02:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:02:36 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #rdf-star
16:02:39 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:02:44 <eBremer> present+
16:02:54 <pchampin> ora: before we start,
16:03:09 <pchampin> ... Adrian and I gave a presentation last week about RDF 1.2 at the Knowledge Graph Conference
16:03:16 <niklasl> present+
16:03:42 <pchampin> ... the talk was very well attended, people were forced to listen from the hallway
16:03:47 <ora> https://www.lassila.org/publications/2025/lassila-gschwend-kgc2025.pdf
16:03:51 <TallTed> Zakim, open first item
16:03:51 <Zakim> I don't understand 'open first item', TallTed
16:03:54 <pchampin> ... link to our slides above
16:03:57 <TallTed> Zakim, next item
16:03:57 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- naming RDF 1.2 without triple terms -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/135 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:04:01 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:04:11 <doerthe> present+
16:04:18 <pfps> q+
16:04:32 <ora> ack pfps
16:04:43 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
16:04:51 <Dominik_T> present+
16:04:53 <pchampin> pfps: it appears that it has already been decided, and this is our next agenda item.
16:05:46 <pchampin> ... there is an official resolution I guess
16:05:47 <gkellogg> subitem: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/135
16:05:47 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/135 -> Issue 135 naming RDF 1.2 without triple terms (by pfps) [needs discussion]
16:05:51 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:05:56 <Souri> present+
16:06:19 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/2023/10/05-rdf-star-minutes#r03
16:06:37 <gkellogg> s/subitem/subtopic/
16:06:44 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-star
16:06:48 <AZ> present+
16:06:58 <niklasl> +1
16:07:10 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:07:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
16:08:02 <pchampin> zakim, next item
16:08:02 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Define RDF 1.2 Basic profile -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/70 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:08:25 <pchampin> s|subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/135/|
16:08:25 <ora> q?
16:08:35 <pfps> q+
16:08:49 <pfps> q-
16:09:18 <AndyS> Summary -- https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/70#issuecomment-2862484707
16:09:19 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/70 -> Issue 70 Define RDF 1.2 Basic profile (by gkellogg) [needs discussion] [spec:enhancement]
16:09:21 <pchampin> ora: AndyS, you have summarized in the issue thread what RDF 1.2 Basic is
16:09:39 <pchampin> ... what is the status of rdf:XMLLiteral, rdf:HTML and rdf:JSON in this?
16:10:47 <pfps> The only change for rdf:XMLLiteral and rdf:HTML is that the documents that they pointed to are now recommendations.
16:10:50 <niklasl> q+
16:11:05 <pfps> I don't think that any other change is needed.
16:11:36 <ora> ack niklasl
16:11:41 <pfps> This means that they are part of RDF, but implementations don't need to include them.
16:11:50 <pfps> rdf:JSON could end up wth the same status.
16:12:10 <pchampin> niklasl: I have been wonder about the relationship between the RDF 1.2 basic profile and the version tags
16:12:27 <pchampin> ... not sure we all have the same notion about what the basic profile is for
16:12:28 <pfps> THere is an editorial question - should the description be moved from Concepts to Schema?
16:12:54 <pchampin> ... is it only about specifying what syntaxes are supporting?
16:12:58 <timbl> timbl has joined #rdf-star
16:13:16 <pchampin> ... or is it a version of RDF which has no special meaning for propositions? (as defined in semantics)
16:13:18 <pchampin> q+
16:13:38 <ora> ack pchampin
16:13:38 <gkellogg> scribe+
16:13:41 <ora> q+
16:13:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:14:08 <gkellogg> pchampin: I believe the profile represents a subset of the abstract syntax, which reflects the concrete syntaxes.
16:14:33 <gkellogg> ... AndyS's summary goes a bit beyond this, but the point is that it represents a syntax without triple terms.
16:15:04 <ora> ack ora
16:15:08 <gkellogg> ... I think we need to update the Conformance section; arguably, the class and the profile could be separate things, but I think they should be the same thing.
16:15:11 <gkellogg> scribe-
16:15:29 <AndyS> q+
16:15:37 <pchampin> ora: if people in this group are confused, then other people will be even more, and we don't want that
16:15:45 <enrico> enrico has joined #rdf-star
16:15:48 <pfps> +1 to using the same "tag"
16:15:50 <enrico> present+
16:15:52 <enrico> q+
16:15:55 <ora> ack AndyS
16:15:55 <pchampin> ... we need to make this very straightforwad to understand, to avoid losing our audience
16:16:09 <Dominik_T> +1 to using the same tag too
16:16:30 <pchampin> AndyS: the semantics is not different. There is nothing in the Semantics document that distinguishes between the profiles.
16:16:43 <pchampin> ... I could have been clearer in the summary.
16:16:58 <pfps> +1 to RDF 1.2 Basic is just a syntactic limitation - the semantics is the same
16:17:05 <niklasl> q+
16:17:10 <ora> ack enrico
16:17:22 <pchampin> enrico: a warning: if we take this definition of the fragment,
16:17:37 <pchampin> ... if I have a rdf:reifies b, b becomes an instance of rdfs:Proposition
16:17:49 <pchampin> <pchampin> agreed, and I don't see this as a problem
16:18:00 <pfps> I'm OK with the entailment of rdf(s?):Proposition happening.
16:18:05 <ora> ack niklasl
16:18:11 <pchampin> ... and rdfs:Proposition is an RDF 1.2 specific feature
16:18:26 <AZ> q+
16:18:33 <pchampin> niklasl: enrico's point covers the strongest part of my concern
16:19:18 <pchampin> q+
16:19:27 <pchampin> ... the "unstar" or "classicize" algorithm is used to remove triple terms;
16:19:47 <pchampin> ... it may look as redundant with the basic profile
16:20:35 <pchampin> ... same for the version markers;
16:20:35 <pchampin> ... my understanding was that their role was to signal "my parser can not understand anything beyond 1.1"
16:20:44 <gkellogg> q+
16:21:00 <pchampin> ora: are you implying that the profile should not exist;
16:21:00 <pchampin> ... instead, people may simply want to stick to RDF 1.1
16:21:00 <ora> ack AZ
16:21:22 <pchampin> AZ: if people use rdf:reifies, you have the entailment Enrico mentioned
16:21:39 <pchampin> ... but it is not because of the addition of triple terms; it is because the addition of rdf:reifies
16:21:47 <pchampin> ... it is easy to add this to existing reasoners
16:22:05 <niklasl> q+
16:22:11 <enrico> q+
16:22:27 <pchampin> ... The goal of RDF 1.2 is not to allow previous implementation to work "out of the box", you still need to add things like rdf:reifies, rdf:Proposition, base dir, etc.
16:22:48 <ora> ack pchampin
16:22:49 <gkellogg> scribe+
16:22:50 <pchampin> ora: you are saying: we need to make sure that people are not just slapping a 1.2-basic version on their 1.1 impl
16:22:52 <pchampin> AZ: yes
16:23:05 <gkellogg> scribe-
16:23:09 <gkellogg> scribe+
16:23:19 <pfps> +1 to andy
16:23:35 <gkellogg> pchampin: The role of unstar/basicify is to encode RDF 1.2 Full into RDF 1.2 Basic.
16:23:55 <gkellogg> ... It describes a way of encoding graphs with triple terms without using triple terms.
16:24:12 <gkellogg> ... We could have defined a mapping to RDF 1.1, but we didn't do that.
16:24:27 <gkellogg> ... I don't see why this is problematic; maybe it needs to be rephrased.
16:24:34 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:24:37 <gkellogg> scribe-
16:25:05 <pchampin> gkellogg: it is not simply about what parsers support or what systems can represent;
16:25:19 <pchampin> ... for me it is also about the RDF-CANON canonicalization
16:25:31 <ora> ack niklasl
16:25:58 <pchampin> ora: just, let's not use the term "basicify"!
16:26:20 <tl> "turned basic"
16:26:24 <pchampin> niklasl: my understanding is that RDF 1.2 basic was RDF 1.2 semantics with RDF 1.1 syntax
16:26:38 <pchampin> ... canonicalization does not work with base direction
16:26:47 <ora> ack enrico
16:27:17 <pchampin> enrico: it is not enough to kill rdf:reifies and triple terms
16:27:41 <pchampin> ... we need to understand the consequences on reasoning of just restricting the syntax.
16:27:55 <pfps> I don't think that Enrico's concern has any implications, but this should be checked.
16:27:58 <pchampin> ... Another point: I don't like how the "unstar" algorithm.
16:28:08 <pchampin> ... It does not prevent semantics, why should people use it?
16:28:34 <pchampin> ... I believe that "unstar" should only unstar the Turtle syntactic sugar.
16:29:51 <pchampin> ... This really question why we want to have RDF 1.2 in the first place.
16:30:19 <pchampin> ora: I've heard many people ask "what about old-style reification?"
16:30:35 <pchampin> ... we need to have a very clear answer to this question.
16:31:32 <pchampin> ... I understand that this is not only a syntactic restriction.
16:31:33 <pchampin> q+
16:31:35 <AndyS> q+
16:31:52 <ora> ack pchampin
16:33:33 <AndyS> q-
16:34:26 <gkellogg> scribe+
16:34:36 <gkellogg> pchampin: I don't understand enrico's concern.
16:34:37 <gkellogg> scribe-
16:35:33 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-semantics/#dfn-rdfs14
16:36:07 <pchampin> enrico: see 3rd rule in appendix A of RDF semantcis
16:36:23 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-semantics/#entailment_rules -- Grdfs14
16:36:24 <pchampin> ... this rule generates triple terms
16:37:05 <AndyS> rdfs14 -- only if <<()>> occurs in the data
16:37:13 <doerthe> I also think these rules won't harm
16:37:16 <pchampin> pchampin: but it generates them in the subject position, so that's generalized RDF, so not part of the abstract syntax :)
16:38:19 <pchampin> niklasl: I think the explanations about reification and the relationship to "old-style" reifications are meant to be in RDF-Schema
16:38:25 <pchampin> ... I have not progressed on this
16:38:41 <doerthe> depending what you want, I can help you to go through the semantics, Niklas
16:38:50 <pchampin> ... I want to show that "old-style" reification can be isomorphic to new reification with some inference
16:39:12 <niklasl> My explanation/reasoning is also in https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/152
16:39:13 <gb> 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)
16:39:26 <doerthe> I'll check
16:39:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:39:37 <enrico> q+
16:39:42 <pchampin> ora: niklasl, when do you think we can have this explanation. This would be something we could vote on.
16:41:15 <pchampin> niklasl: I think we can not make "unstar" semantically interoperable, RDF-Schema is too weak.
16:41:51 <pchampin> ora: I think we need a description of what basic is, its relationship with full, and explanations about the unstar algorithm
16:42:06 <niklasl> There is also an rdf:Statement _as a reifier_ in https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-primer/#section-turtle-reifier-representation
16:42:12 <pchampin> ... I'm not so concerned about having a note document ready, but I would like some text that we can vote on
16:42:37 <Dominik_T> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:42:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T
16:42:45 <AndyS> q+
16:42:46 <pchampin> ... I'd like to have this in 2 weeks, to continue the discussion.
16:42:47 <ora> ack enrico
16:42:56 <niklasl> (specifically https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-primer/#example-unnamed-reifier (Example 15) )
16:44:59 <pchampin> q+
16:44:59 <niklasl> q+
16:45:08 <AndyS> q-
16:45:17 <ora> ack pchampin
16:45:36 <pchampin> enrico: I think we should rather work on mapping triple terms to old style reification and drop unstar
16:46:17 <pchampin> ... having two transformation would confus people
16:46:23 <pchampin> ora: +1 to enrico on this
16:46:39 <ora> ack niklasl
16:46:54 <gkellogg> scribe+
16:47:08 <niklasl> q+
16:47:09 <gkellogg> pchampin: The idea of unstar mapping is to have something as simple as possible.
16:47:37 <gkellogg> ... I agree that if we have a semantics-preserviing mapping, that would be best, but I don't think we can do that with old-style reification.
16:47:58 <enrico> q+
16:48:04 <gkellogg> ... I'm all for trying. We didn't try to be semantics preserving, but to have an encoding that would work for C14N.
16:48:16 <niklasl> I have one, but I fear it's too loose: https://github.com/niklasl/owlery/blob/main/classicize.ru
16:48:29 <tl> old-style reification needs an intermediate mechanism to deal with multi-tripleterm propositions
16:48:30 <gkellogg> ... This is not needed if there is a more elegant/semantics preserving way, we should do that.
16:48:42 <gkellogg> ... But, we don't have this at the moment.
16:48:42 <ora> ack niklasl
16:48:43 <gkellogg> scribe-
16:48:58 <pchampin> niklasl: I pasted a link with the one I've been toying with
16:49:26 <pchampin> ... it is based on the fact that if you have a proposition, you have a token about it
16:50:05 <pchampin> ... I think what we need is a way to encode RDF 1.2 data into RDF 1.1 concrete syntaxes
16:50:06 <tl> q+
16:50:15 <ora> ack enrico
16:50:39 <pchampin> enrico: I believe that we can find an entailment preserving (not semantics encoding) encoding only for the syntactic sugar
16:50:55 <pchampin> .. that is a strong thing, because we encourage the use of the syntactic sugar
16:51:27 <pchampin> ora: would this make the syntactic sugar we have a syntactic suger for classic reification?
16:51:39 <pchampin> enrico: no; it would not have the same semantics
16:52:12 <pchampin> ora: and this would be using a different vocabulary than the classic reification
16:52:16 <pchampin> enrico: yes
16:52:36 <pchampin> ora: that would be great, but then we still have the question of the old reification
16:52:38 <ora> ack tl
16:53:02 <pchampin> enrico: the answer would be counter examples: things that were confusing with the old way, and are better with the new way
16:53:33 <pchampin> tl: one main difference is the ability to reify multiple triples for one reifier
16:53:41 <pchampin> ora: how do we move forward?
16:54:24 <pchampin> ... I like the idea that a basic reasoner could produce the same entailment that a full reasoner?
16:54:30 <AndyS> q+
16:54:37 <pchampin> ... Does this address the problem of canonicalization?
16:54:38 <ora> ack AndyS
16:54:50 <pchampin> enrico: intuitively yes, but the devil is in the details :)
16:55:25 <pchampin> AndyS: canonicalization is merely about the syntax. All it needs is a form of flattening triple terms.
16:55:43 <pchampin> gkellogg: as long as there is a single way of turning triple terms in RDF 1.2 classic, that would work properly
16:55:44 <pchampin> q+
16:55:58 <pchampin> ... canonicalization does not require semantic equivalence
16:56:02 <niklasl>     :a rdf:refifies <<( :x :p :y )>> .
16:56:02 <niklasl> #= >
16:56:02 <niklasl>     :a rdf:refifies _:tt .
16:56:02 <niklasl>     _:token rdf:refifies rdf:refifies _:tt .
16:56:03 <niklasl>     _:token rdf:tokenSubject :x .
16:56:03 <niklasl>     _:token rdf:tokenPredicate :p .
16:56:03 <niklasl>     _:token rdf:tokenObject :y .
16:56:08 <ora> ack pchampin
16:56:25 <niklasl> s/refifies/reifies/g
16:57:09 <niklasl> q+
16:57:53 <pchampin> pchampin: my only concern is that then RDF that can not be expressed using the syntactic sugar could *not* be canonicalized
16:58:07 <pchampin> ... this is not unreasonable, but I'm not entirely happy with it
16:58:14 <pchampin> ora: we need to document that
16:58:47 <ora> ack niklasl
16:59:38 <pchampin> ... we are out of time.
16:59:55 <pchampin> ... There will be a SPARQL TF tomorrow.
17:00:23 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
17:00:26 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:00:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:03:45 <Souri> What is the RDF1.1 equivalent of the following? :r1 rdf:reifies <<( :s1 :p1 <<( :s2 :p2 :o2 )>>  )>> .
17:04:51 <niklasl> s/rdf:refifies rdf:refifies/rdf:reifies/
17:05:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:06:07 <TallTed> s/refifies/reifies/g
17:06:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:06:38 <pchampin> s|subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/135|
17:07:07 <pchampin> s|https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/135 -> Issue 135 naming RDF 1.2 without triple terms (by pfps) [needs discussion]||g
17:07:11 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:07:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:07:18 <TallTed> s/rdf:reifies rdf:reifies/rdf:reifies/
17:07:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/15-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:14:48 <TallTed> Souri — I suggest raising that question via email
17:21:38 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:39:55 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:48:05 <timbl> timbl has joined #rdf-star
18:32:22 <timbl> timbl has joined #rdf-star
18:57:12 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:07:08 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:25:34 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:34:46 <pfps`> pfps` has joined #rdf-star
20:41:01 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:07:34 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:10:23 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:44:33 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:00:55 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star