00:31:39 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
00:50:56 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
01:08:14 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:51:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:51:52 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/06/12-rdf-star-irc
15:52:22 <ktk> meeting:  RDF-star WG biweekly focused meeting
15:52:27 <ktk> meeting: RDF-star WG biweekly focused meeting
15:52:47 <ktk> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3145be7b-99e7-49af-90b0-aee845dc7b2d/20250612T120000/
15:52:47 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:52:47 <agendabot> agenda+ extract the "basic-encoding" (formerly unstar) algorithm from RDF-Concepts into a Note -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/163
15:52:47 <agendabot> agenda+ vocabulary to refer to the individual nodes in a reified triple term -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130
15:52:48 <agendabot> agenda+ make progress on test suites to move to CR -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/164
15:52:49 <agendabot> agenda+ Version announcement -> 4 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/pull/58
15:52:52 <agendabot> agenda+ Decide names and IRIs for type and constituent properties of basic-encoded triple terms -> 5 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/170
15:52:58 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:52:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/12-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
15:53:05 <ktk> RRSAgent, make log public
15:53:20 <ktk> present+
15:57:02 <gkellogg> prsent+
15:57:31 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
15:58:32 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
15:58:55 <james> james has joined #rdf-star
15:59:00 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
15:59:47 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:00:15 <gtw> present+
16:00:27 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
16:00:37 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:00:38 <ktk> Chair: ora:
16:00:40 <ktk> Chair: ora
16:00:50 <pfps> present+
16:00:50 <james> present+
16:00:53 <ora> present+
16:01:07 <Tpt> present+
16:01:10 <Tpt> scribe+
16:01:29 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:01:34 <tl> present+
16:01:46 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-star
16:02:02 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:02:03 <pchampin> present+
16:02:07 <Souri> present+
16:02:22 <olaf> present+
16:02:32 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/06/05-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:02:32 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/06/13-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:02:47 <ktk> Zakim, open item 1
16:02:47 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- extract the "basic-encoding" (formerly unstar) algorithm from RDF-Concepts into a Note -> 1 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/163 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:02:58 <AZ> present+
16:03:46 <TallTed> present+
16:03:49 <niklasl> present+
16:03:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/12-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:04:11 <ora> q?
16:04:44 <Dominik_T> present+
16:05:12 <Tpt> pchampin: There are some ongoing discussion on the unstar mapping. It is an non-normative part of RDF concepts that takes a singnificant amount of space. It might make sense to move it out of the spec in a dedicated note. This way it does not block RDF concepts to move into CR
16:05:21 <pfps> present+
16:05:34 <tl> q+
16:05:40 <Tpt> pchampin: The main point is to move it out of RDF concepts to not block RDF concepts moving into a CR
16:05:41 <ora> ack tl
16:05:41 <pfps> It's fine by me to move this to a note.
16:05:42 <gkellogg> q+
16:06:06 <pfps> q+
16:06:16 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:06:22 <Tpt> tl: Having unstar is pretty essential to connect new concepts with the existing ones
16:06:48 <ora> ack pfps
16:06:53 <Tpt> gkellogg: If it an informative note, how can it be used by RDF canonicalization? Would they have to do a new version of it that is normative?
16:07:01 <pchampin> q+ to respond re. c14n
16:07:19 <niklasl> q+
16:07:22 <ora> ack pchampin
16:07:22 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to respond re. c14n
16:07:23 <Tpt> pfps: I disagree with tl, I don't see how the basic encoding help to explain the relation between old and new concepts
16:08:00 <AndyS> present+
16:08:03 <Tpt> pchampin: +1 to pfps, it is important that this mapping does not give the impression it is *the* relation between triple terms and statements
16:08:04 <pfps> the mapping is not in any way saying how triple terms relate to rdf:Statement, at least so far
16:08:28 <Tpt> pchampin: I agree that other specs might want to rely on that and we have a problem
16:08:29 <tl> q+
16:08:30 <ora> ack niklasl
16:08:31 <gkellogg> q+
16:08:40 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:08:46 <doerthe> present+
16:08:55 <pfps> as far as I remember there was very little support for making triple terms relate to the RDF reification voculary in any way
16:09:42 <ora> q+
16:10:16 <Tpt> niklasl: Formally there is no difference between a note and having it being a part of RDF concepts
16:10:26 <pfps> +1 to niklas
16:10:52 <pchampin> niklasl, the difference is that we *could* decide to make it normative after all if it remains in Concepts; this is not an option if we move it to a Note
16:10:54 <ora> ack tl
16:11:00 <Tpt> niklasl: It can't be done as part of RDF schema semantic, we need to do it elsewhere
16:11:40 <Tpt> tl: The semantic of triple term is nearly indistiguishable with RDF standard reification, we could just merge the two
16:11:51 <niklasl> q+
16:12:13 <niklasl> Not *only* though.
16:12:15 <pfps> the semantics of triple terms are different from the semantics of standard reification - the difference is important
16:12:19 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:12:43 <pchampin> q+
16:12:53 <Dominik_T> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:12:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/12-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T
16:13:00 <ora> ack ora
16:13:00 <Tpt> tl: We could consider publishing as a note and in the WG maintainance mode move it to a normative element or integrate it into RDF concepts
16:13:20 <Tpt> ora: A note like this would be more than this "unstar" mapping. It would have some advises to people
16:13:36 <Tpt> ora: for me it make sense to have it as note
16:13:37 <ora> ack niklasl
16:14:03 <pchampin> q-
16:14:48 <tl> q+
16:14:52 <pchampin> +1 pfps
16:14:54 <Tpt> niklasl: I agree with that, perhaps we need two notes, a compatibility note and one with advices
16:15:31 <ora> ack tl
16:16:00 <Tpt> tl: Reification in RDF 1.0 has an informal semantic.
16:16:26 <AndyS> q+
16:16:26 <niklasl> Define semantics? It is based on RDF semantics, but adds none?
16:16:32 <Tpt> ora: I would like a decision
16:16:34 <pfps> the semantics of standard reification is just the semantics ascribed to properties and types - there is nothing more!
16:16:45 <ora> ack AndyS
16:16:58 <niklasl> +1 to pfps
16:16:58 <Tpt> ora: We can start as "non normative" and make it normative if there is a reason
16:17:16 <Tpt> AndyS: What the barrier to having an other normative document?
16:17:21 <pchampin> q+
16:17:49 <ora> ack pchampin
16:18:17 <ora> q+
16:18:19 <Tpt> pchampin: Adding a new REC track deliverable might be an heavier process
16:18:26 <tl> pfps: what more does it need?
16:18:46 <Tpt> pchampin: I would like to agree to separate it from RDF concepts and then differ the decision to make it a note or a recommandation
16:18:52 <pfps> what more does what need?
16:19:06 <tl> the definition of the semantics
16:19:14 <ora> ack ora
16:19:16 <pfps> the semantics of what?
16:19:51 <tl> pfps: "the semantics of standard reification is just the semantics ascribed to properties and types - there is nothing more!" that semantics
16:19:57 <pchampin> q+
16:20:06 <ora> ack pchampin
16:20:18 <Tpt> ora: If we have a note, its scope can be larger than unstar and contain more content like advices. If it is normative, it might make more sense to have it in concepts
16:20:38 <pfps> I don't think that anything more is "needed".  One might want to have more, but the current semantics is a (weak) stable point.
16:21:11 <Tpt> pchampin: For me the urgency is to free RDF concepts to go into CR
16:21:29 <Tpt> pchampin: then we can have further discussion on REC vs NOTE and on the document scope
16:22:28 <Tpt> pchampin: I don't want to give the impression that all RDF 1.2 implementations needs to support unstar even if it's only for specific use cases
16:23:02 <Tpt> ora: If I understand what you mean, you want to say "if you want to have this kind of processing, do it this way" and not "to implement RDF you need to be able to do that"
16:23:15 <AndyS> q+
16:23:23 <pchampin> different "bridges": full-basic, basic-1.1
16:23:27 <ora> ack AndyS
16:24:03 <Tpt> AndyS: If you put it into a best practice document, it would weird to have some normative sections
16:24:20 <Tpt> AndyS: We can decide now to have a separate document (initially a NOTE)
16:24:52 <Tpt> ora: For me the easiest route would be to make it a separate NOTE and then make the decision to make it a REC if we want so.
16:25:29 <ora> PROPOSAL: Separate "unstar" mapping from Concepts, make it a Note (initially).
16:25:39 <pchampin> +1
16:25:40 <pfps> +1
16:25:41 <niklasl> +1
16:25:42 <Dominik_T> +1
16:25:43 <ora> +1
16:25:44 <gkellogg> +1
16:25:44 <doerthe> +1
16:25:45 <tl> +1
16:25:46 <olaf> +1
16:25:47 <Souri> +1
16:25:48 <ktk> +1
16:25:50 <AndyS> +1
16:25:50 <james> +1
16:25:52 <Tpt> +1
16:25:54 <gtw> +1
16:26:11 <ora> RESOLVED: Separate "unstar" mapping from Concepts, make it a Note (initially).
16:26:25 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:26:25 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- vocabulary to refer to the individual nodes in a reified triple term -> 2 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:26:28 <pchampin> action: pchampin to extract the "unstar" mapping from RDF-concepts
16:26:36 <gb> Created -> action #165 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/165
16:26:57 <tl> on that topic see comment https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130#issuecomment-2425965785
16:26:58 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130 -> Issue 130 vocabulary to refer to the individual nodes in a reified triple term (by rat10) [needs discussion]
16:27:18 <pfps> q+
16:27:55 <Tpt> tl: The idea is one can annotate the reified triple term but one might want to annotate a given triple in a refied triple term
16:29:52 <Tpt> tl: I presented that in the semantic task force last year to know if we could use rdf:subject/predicate/object for that or a new vocabulary rdf:onSubject/Predicate/Object
16:31:29 <Tpt> tl: If the reified triple has for type rdf:Statement then this issue is null
16:31:32 <niklasl> q+
16:31:33 <ora> ack pfps
16:31:35 <pfps> the idea is actually extremely complex, if it has any bite, being able to reach into a triple term and attach new information to its pieces is something that is far from anything else that can be done in RDF.  Of course, maybe there is no "there" there and this construct has no additional semantics then what is it for and why should the properties be in the RDF namespace.
16:32:19 <ora> ack niklasl
16:32:37 <Tpt> pfps: Why having properties for that in the RDF namespace, if you need to do this, use properties in your own namespace
16:33:04 <ora> q+
16:33:15 <Tpt> niklasl: The problem is inheriting the notion of identity. The very informative rdf:Statement vocabulary could be used for that
16:34:46 <Tpt> niklasl: Hopefully some of the things you want would be explained in a note. In general I have to agree with pfps, it's not a pattern we could endorse in RDF
16:35:09 <Tpt> niklasl: I would prefer specific complex concepts to have dedicated vocabulary. The prov: ontology is a good example of that
16:35:13 <ora> ack ora
16:36:04 <Tpt> ora: For tl, do you think you can write something like a vocabulary you invent that allows to do that
16:36:20 <tl> q+
16:36:24 <Tpt> ora: We can push people to design their own vocabularies for what they want to do and show it can be done
16:36:41 <ora> ack tl
16:36:47 <Tpt> ora: It does not need to be the worry of this WG
16:37:03 <niklasl> I specifically mean the prov:specializationOf property.
16:37:14 <Tpt> tl: I disagree with this prov: vocabulary example, provenance in not really a thing in my example
16:37:26 <Tpt> tl: I would be in favor of using the same vocabulary in all places
16:37:44 <tl> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130#issuecomment-2900607775
16:37:45 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130 -> Issue 130 vocabulary to refer to the individual nodes in a reified triple term (by rat10) [needs discussion]
16:38:18 <Tpt> tl: ^ an other comment, the second example there is very clear, using the standard RDF reification vocabulary
16:38:27 <pfps> q+ to say that this is not referring - there is already a way to refer to the subject, predicate, and object of a triple term
16:39:10 <Tpt> tl: we can live it like that an talk about the triple term vocabulary and see if we actually need specific vocabularies or just reuse the plain rdf:subject/predicate/object vocabulary
16:39:11 <ora> ack pfps
16:39:11 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to say that this is not referring - there is already a way to refer to the subject, predicate, and object of a triple term
16:39:16 <niklasl> q+
16:39:37 <Souri> Wouldn't an "avatar"-based approach work? => :r rdf:reifies <<( :Alice12 :bought :LennyPuppet )>>, <<( :Alice12 :age 12 )>>, <<( :Alice12 :avatarOf :Alice )>>, <<( :LennyPuppet rdf:type :Puppet )>>  ... .
16:39:50 <Tpt> pfps: If the subject of the triple term is Alice, we can just refer to Alice directly
16:39:56 <james> exactly
16:40:13 <ora> ack niklasl
16:40:18 <Tpt> If we can talk about Alice in the context of age 12, you can use a named graph for that (maybe problem solved?)
16:40:29 <Tpt> niklasl: This might be true but without semantic we don't know
16:40:44 <Tpt> niklasl: Yes, you can use the classical reification vocabulary for that
16:41:11 <Tpt> niklasl: The question you can ask yourself is "would your user accept that"?
16:41:18 <ora> q+
16:41:19 <pchampin> niklasl, it would RDFS-entail that the reifier is of type `rdf:Statement`, which may not be desired...
16:41:20 <pfps> +q to niklasl - what we have at the moment is a bunch of aspirations without any notion of their semantics
16:41:47 <ora> ack ora
16:41:51 <pfps> q-
16:42:16 <Tpt> ora: If I understand it correctly, it seems it really pushes the boundaries of RDF. I would like to see how do we do this with the RDF we have
16:43:13 <Souri> q+
16:43:21 <Tpt> ora: I don't see the WG responding particularly positively, you can use the RDF we have right now to model that. I would see that as a favorable solution
16:43:23 <ora> ack Souri
16:43:30 <tl> q+
16:43:40 <niklasl> pchampin; Yes, good point, that is an inevitable consequence. Maybe ok:ish for the users, but indeed conceptually "muddy".
16:44:04 <Tpt> Souri: This idea of putting of context with Alice is to introduce Alice12.
16:44:43 <niklasl> What Souri suggests is exactly what I suggested in https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130#issuecomment-2884322507
16:44:43 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130 -> Issue 130 vocabulary to refer to the individual nodes in a reified triple term (by rat10) [needs discussion]
16:44:46 <Tpt> ora: You can introduce an ontology with the concept of avatar
16:44:48 <ora> ack tl
16:44:58 <niklasl> (So +1 to Souri)
16:45:04 <Tpt> tl: Yes, we can close it then, without much support there is no much point
16:45:42 <Tpt> tl: you can do everything already with the RDF we have
16:45:47 <Tpt> tl: we are looking for easier ways
16:46:15 <niklasl> q+
16:46:32 <ora> ack niklasl
16:47:21 <ktk> Zakim, next item
16:47:21 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- make progress on test suites to move to CR -> 3 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/164 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:47:41 <gkellogg> q+
16:47:43 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:47:49 <Dominik_T> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:47:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/12-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T
16:48:49 <AndyS> q+
16:48:56 <ora> ack AndyS
16:49:06 <Tpt> gkellogg: There is a big MR in RDF/XML that needs multiple approvals
16:49:25 <Tpt> AndyS: Talking tests is a way to talk about "what do we need to move to CR"
16:49:34 <pchampin> q+
16:49:36 <Tpt> AndyS: I would like to confirm there is nothing else to do out of the tests
16:49:41 <ora> ack pchampin
16:49:44 <gkellogg> q+
16:50:06 <Tpt> pchampin: Good point, the other important thing is the wide review, we need to coordinate with the W3C
16:50:59 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:51:05 <Tpt> ora: let's confirm that wide review is before CR
16:51:19 <Tpt> AndyS: Reformulated question: is there anything to do before wide review
16:51:36 <Tpt> AndyS: We have open PRs for VERSION declaration in NTriples and NQuads
16:52:01 <Tpt> s/AndyS: We have open/gkellogg: We have open/
16:52:30 <Tpt> AndyS: Hare we aiming at having RDF concepts and NTriples/NQuads CR at the same time
16:52:51 <pchampin> q+
16:52:56 <Tpt> AndyS: If we are aiming for concepts and semantic to go out as a pair, we need NTriples/NQuads out as well
16:52:57 <ora> ack pchampin
16:53:51 <AndyS> Given needing N-Triples, putting Turtle/TriG into the mix seems natural.
16:53:53 <Tpt> pchampin: I am in favor to have VERSION announcement in NTriples/NQuads as well
16:54:18 <Tpt> ora: It seems there is not much to do
16:54:32 <Tpt> AndyS: Can we minute this statement ^
16:55:00 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
16:55:03 <Dominik_T> s/prsent+/present+/
16:55:22 <Tpt> ora: There is a great deal of interest in RDF 1.2
16:55:40 <Tpt> ora: A question I got is "what does it means for ontology definition"
16:56:06 <Dominik_T> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:56:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/12-rdf-star-minutes.html Dominik_T
16:56:13 <AndyS> agenda?
16:56:20 <Tpt> ora: Any last word?
16:56:28 <Tpt> ora: Thank you for your contributions
16:56:46 <Tpt> AndyS: There is a meeting tomorrow, bumpt to 14:30UTC
16:57:12 <Tpt> AndyS: This is a permanent move
16:57:33 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:57:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/12-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
16:58:43 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:58:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/12-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
16:58:49 <pfps> pfps has left #rdf-star
16:59:09 <pchampin> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
16:59:10 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/163#issuecomment-2967587781
16:59:11 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/130#issuecomment-2967587824
16:59:12 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/164#issuecomment-2967587864
17:00:30 <ktk> s/It is an non-normative/It is a non-normative/
17:00:30 <ktk> s/singnificant/significant/
17:00:30 <ktk> s/help to explain/helps to explain/
17:00:30 <ktk> s/voculary/vocabulary/
17:00:30 <ktk> s/The semantic of triple term/The semantics of triple terms/
17:00:33 <ktk> s/indistiguishable/indistinguishable/
17:00:35 <ktk> s/advices/advice/
17:00:38 <ktk> s/for me it make sense/for me it makes sense/
17:00:41 <ktk> s/then what is it for and why should/then what is it for, and why should/
17:00:43 <ktk> s/provenance in not really/provenance is not really/
17:00:46 <ktk> s/we can live it like that an talk/we can leave it like that and talk/
17:00:48 <ktk> s/an talk about/and talk about/
17:00:51 <ktk> s/there is no much point/there is not much point/
17:00:54 <ktk> s/Hare we aiming/Are we aiming/
17:00:56 <ktk> s/bumpt to 14:30UTC/bumped to 14:30UTC/
17:00:59 <ktk> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:01:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/12-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk
17:01:06 <ktk> pchampin: ah was I too late?
17:03:33 <ktk> ah no it worked
17:18:33 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:35:28 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:52:29 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:52:50 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:09:10 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:02:15 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:30:57 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:52:54 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:00:36 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:47:23 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:04:49 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:32:51 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star