15:20:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:20:05 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-irc
15:20:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-star
15:20:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:21:25 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/07/31-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:21:25 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-rdf-star-minutes.html
15:22:04 <TallTed> meeting: RDF & SPARQL WG
15:22:39 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3145be7b-99e7-49af-90b0-aee845dc7b2d/20250807T120000/
15:22:39 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:22:39 <agendabot> agenda+ Identifying issues to solve before CR  -> 1 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2025Jul/0027.html
15:23:42 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF & SPARQL WG -- 2025-08-07 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3145be7b-99e7-49af-90b0-aee845dc7b2d/20250807T120000/
15:24:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:47:37 <gtw> I'll be joining the call today via phone only from a 310 number.
15:54:24 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
15:55:02 <james> james has joined #rdf-star
15:58:46 <tl> tl has joined #rdf-star
15:59:05 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
16:00:21 <tl> present+
16:00:50 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdf-star
16:01:18 <TallTed> chair: ora
16:01:24 <TallTed> scribe: TallTed
16:01:39 <ora> present+
16:01:45 <AndyS> present+
16:01:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:02:00 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:02:02 <pchampin> present+
16:02:07 <gkellogg> present+
16:02:41 <niklasl> present+
16:03:29 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:03:38 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:03:45 <doerthe> present+
16:03:49 <ktk> present+
16:04:16 <ktk> regrets+ olaf
16:04:29 <james> present+
16:04:30 <ktk> regrets+ fsasaki
16:04:54 <ktk> Zakim, open item 1
16:04:54 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Identifying issues to solve before CR  -> 1 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2025Jul/0027.html -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:04:58 <AndyS> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/8
16:05:20 <TallTed> ora: we have issues to solve before CR...
16:05:23 <ktk> regrets+ pfps
16:06:12 <TallTed> ... preferences for order of attack?
16:06:54 <william-vw> william-vw has joined #rdf-star
16:06:57 <william-vw> present+
16:07:19 <TallTed> [ suggestions made ... which provide basis for which others? ]
16:07:49 <AndyS> First paragraph "an abstract syntax (a data model) "
16:07:52 <niklasl> q+
16:08:08 <ora> ack niklasl
16:08:31 <AndyS> "1.1 Graph-based Data Model"
16:08:44 <pchampin> i|First paragraph|subtopic: w3c/rdf-concepts#129
16:08:44 <TallTed> niklasl: prefer `abstract syntax`, because `data model` can mean more different things
16:08:46 <gkellogg> q+
16:08:52 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:09:32 <niklasl> q+
16:09:33 <AndyS> and of course the title: "Concepts and Abstract Syntax"
16:09:35 <TallTed> gkellogg: it may be difficult to completely remove `data model`, but perhaps we could define `data model` in terms of `abstract syntax`
16:09:36 <pchampin> q+
16:10:00 <ora> ack niklasl
16:10:11 <TallTed> ora: I find inclusion of `syntax` leads to confusion in some people's minds
16:10:25 <tl> what about "abstract model"?
16:10:33 <ora> ack pchampin
16:10:44 <TallTed> niklasl: `model` is frequently enough used to mean `interpretation`, leading to more confusion
16:11:20 <gkellogg> q+
16:11:35 <james> q+
16:11:55 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:12:12 <TallTed> pchampin: I have always understood `abstract syntax` and `data model` to be synonyms, and changing that at this stage seems problematic
16:12:38 <ora> ack james
16:12:56 <TallTed> gkellogg: agree these are synonyms, and removing one from the documents at this stage may not be possible
16:13:46 <TallTed> james: they're not synonyms, based on history and elements of their definitions
16:13:51 <AndyS> data model (14) abstract syntax (24 but 6 is title)
16:13:54 <TallTed> ... one reader's opinion
16:14:31 <niklasl> some of the "data model" come from the issue note though ;)
16:15:02 <TallTed> ora: not overly concerned about this, but might be good to have a paragraph we can point people to, going forward
16:15:14 <james> q+
16:15:20 <AndyS> I'm happy with the "abstract syntax (a data model)" in the intro and section 1
16:15:20 <ora> ack james
16:16:03 <gkellogg> q+
16:16:10 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:16:58 <james> q+
16:17:06 <TallTed> gkellogg: people coming to RDF from Property Graphs will wonder what the `RDF data model` *is*, so we shouldn't remove it entirely
16:17:06 <tl> "The abstract syntax is the RDF data model..."
16:17:25 <ora> ack james
16:17:26 <AndyS> q+
16:17:29 <TallTed> ora: suggests glossary that defines "data model" with "see `abstract syntax`"
16:18:06 <ora> ack AndyS
16:18:20 <TallTed> james: people wanting to use RDF to `represent their domain` are thinking about `data model`
16:18:54 <TallTed> AndyS: multiple audiences mean we need to cover some things (like this) early, such as in the introduction
16:19:19 <TallTed> ... we're running into the problem that there aren't enough words
16:19:22 <Souri> Would it be correct to say that "Abstract syntax for RDF enables the RDF data model." ?
16:20:55 <TallTed> ora: proposes we say something to the effect that we think of `abstract syntax` and `data model` as more-or-less interchangeable, and the term `abstract syntax` is largely used today due to its historical use
16:21:09 <AndyS> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_syntax ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_model
16:21:32 <TallTed> ACTION: niklasl to take a stab at the paragraph differentiating c at this stage
16:21:40 <gb> Created -> action #172 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/172
16:22:16 <TallTed> drat. "`c`" should have been "`abstract syntax` and `data model`"
16:22:38 <pchampin> subtopic: w3c/rdf-concepts#143
16:22:39 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/143 -> Issue 143 "3.7 Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs" very misleading (by franconi) [ms:CR] [spec:bug]
16:24:04 <TallTed> AndyS: doesn't like this section, not really sure what it's trying to do (now)
16:24:34 <TallTed> ora: franconi and pfps are not here... thoughts from doerthe?
16:24:39 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-skolemization
16:25:14 <TallTed> doerthe: there is discussion of skolemization elsewhere, so we should keep this, somewhere (perhaps appendix?)
16:25:31 <AndyS> "6. Skolemization" - RDF Semantics - https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-semantics/#skolemization
16:25:44 <TallTed> ... have seen this in practice, but relatively rarely
16:25:55 <tl> q+
16:25:57 <TallTed> ora: I've seen it in production
16:26:22 <TallTed> ktk: has seen it more in connection with SHACL
16:26:49 <TallTed> tl: doesn't canonicalization depend on skolemization?
16:26:55 <gkellogg> q+
16:27:10 <TallTed> ack tl
16:27:23 <ora> ack tl
16:27:25 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:27:26 <doerthe> q+
16:28:08 <TallTed> gkellogg: dataset canonicalization does not use skolemization. skolemization is dependent on its endpoint, among other things.
16:28:12 <ora> ack doerthe
16:28:33 <TallTed> doerthe: could try to make the text more acceptable to franconi
16:28:39 <pchampin> q+
16:29:02 <ora> ack pchampin
16:29:25 <TallTed> ACTION: doerthe to try to revise the text now in appendix b
16:29:26 <gb> Created -> action #173 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/173
16:31:10 <pchampin> subtopic: w3c/rdf-concepts#163
16:31:11 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/163 -> Issue 163 Move datatypes definitions in RDF-Schema? (by pchampin) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
16:31:19 <pchampin> q+
16:31:45 <ora> ack pchampin
16:32:38 <TallTed> pchampin: to summarize, proposal was to move datatype definitions from RDF Concepts to RDF Schema, because not required for basic definitions of RDF
16:32:58 <TallTed> ... also partially to help clear the path to CR
16:33:06 <james> scanning through the current version of "concepts and abstract syntax", of the 14, three are trivially non-distinguishing, five are in the comment about the issue, one is accurately referring to a "model" and the others should more accurately be "abstract syntax".
16:33:34 <TallTed> gkellogg: needs to be resolved before CR if we're making big changes to RDF Concepts, which this would count as
16:33:58 <TallTed> ... it might be too large a refactoring to handle at this stage, with too little benefit
16:34:12 <niklasl> q+
16:34:13 <TallTed> ora: ambivalent. any other thoughts?
16:34:19 <ora> ack niklasl
16:34:50 <TallTed> niklasl: no good arguments. might be *nice* to move from Concepts to Schema, but not *necessary*
16:35:21 <TallTed> ora: seems more a matter of taste than of technicality. no passionate opinions?
16:35:30 <james> q+ : #129
16:35:30 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/129 -> CLOSED Action 129 write a PR on rdf-concepts for the unstar mapping (on pchampin) due 2024-10-01
16:35:31 <TallTed> james: agreed
16:35:41 <ora> ack james
16:35:41 <Zakim> james, you wanted to say #129
16:35:43 <TallTed> s/james/tl
16:36:01 <TallTed> s/james: agreed/tl: agreed
16:37:50 <TallTed> james: volunteers to draft PR replacing `data model` with `abstract syntax` (and vice versa?) to see what happens
16:38:19 <niklasl> Sounds good, so we can see how it reads.
16:38:33 <TallTed> ACTION: james to draft PR replacing `data model` with `abstract syntax` (and vice versa?) to see what happens
16:38:33 <gb> Cannot create action. Validation failed. Maybe james is not a valid user for w3c/rdf-star-wg?
16:39:19 <pchampin> ACTION: lisp to draft PR replacing `data model` with `abstract syntax` (and vice versa?) to see what happens
16:39:20 <gb> Created -> action #174 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/174
16:39:52 <TallTed> ora: returning to question of moving datatype definitions ... let's not?
16:40:04 <TallTed> pchampin: let's close that with no action
16:40:17 <TallTed> [ no objection ]
16:40:25 <gkellogg> q+
16:40:31 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:40:41 <pchampin> subtopic: w3c/rdf-concepts#169
16:40:42 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/169 -> Issue 169 Relative IRI Reference should bind to the irelative-ref production (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
16:40:59 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:41:03 <Souri> present+
16:41:52 <TallTed> gkellogg: what do we do with IRIs that are parsed and match the production for a resolved IRI, but aren't the same after running through resolution algorithm?
16:42:54 <TallTed> ... such as, an IRI that includes leading dot segments. is that the same as the IRI that results from removing such dot segments?
16:43:15 <TallTed> ... thinks not the same
16:43:32 <pchampin> q+
16:43:39 <ora> ack pchampin
16:44:10 <TallTed> TallTed: they're not the same IRI, for most meanings of "same", but whether this matters is another question
16:44:53 <TallTed> pchampin: according to RFC, dot segments are not allowed in absolute IRIs, so these are pathological anyway
16:46:25 <TallTed> gkellogg: suggests pointing to segments of RFC 3686 & 3687 and saying that behavior with such noncompliant IRIs is undefined
16:46:40 <pchampin> q+ to suggest line 8
16:46:44 <TallTed> ora: let's pick that up when AndyS is with us
16:46:47 <ora> ack pchampin
16:46:47 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to suggest line 8
16:47:00 <TallTed> pchampin: suggests https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/183
16:47:00 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/183 -> Issue 183 Normative statement in Security Considerations (by csarven) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
16:47:06 <TallTed> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/183
16:47:36 <TallTed> q+
16:48:22 <gkellogg> q+
16:48:23 <ora> ack TallTed
16:48:47 <pchampin> scribe+
16:48:57 <ora> ack gkellogg
16:49:11 <pchampin> TallTed: I was going to say the same; there are easy subtitutions
16:49:19 <TallTed> ACTION: pchampin to take a stab at https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/183
16:49:20 <gb> Created -> action #175 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/175
16:49:25 <pchampin> ... e.g. 'ought' instead of 'should', 'can' instead of 'may'
16:49:31 <pchampin> scribe-
16:49:37 <TallTed> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/228
16:49:37 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/228 -> Issue 228 RDF Concepts section ordering (by afs) [ms:CR]
16:49:56 <TallTed> gkellogg: small work to be done to finish this
16:51:28 <pchampin> subtopic: w3c/rdf-concepts#92
16:51:28 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/92 -> Issue 92 identity and equality of datatype values (by pfps) [ms:CR] [needs discussion] [spec:editorial]
16:51:31 <pchampin> scribe+
16:51:54 <pchampin> pchampin: we should wait for pfps, but I would consider that this issue can be closed, we had a PR addressing it
16:52:04 <pchampin> ... I'll ping pfps on github to check with him
16:52:11 <pchampin> scribe-
16:52:34 <TallTed> ora: is https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/169 related to https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/issues/73 ?
16:52:35 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-n-triples/issues/73 -> Issue 73 IRI resolution requirements (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [needs discussion] [spec:substantive]
16:52:35 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/169 -> Issue 169 Relative IRI Reference should bind to the irelative-ref production (by gkellogg) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
16:53:24 <pchampin> i|related to|subtopic: two issues about IRIs
16:54:07 <gkellogg> q+
16:54:14 <TallTed> ora: very productive call. just need to see those action points resolved.
16:54:22 <ktk> ack gkellogg
16:54:24 <TallTed> ... continue in this mode in 2 weeks?
16:54:57 <doerthe> isn't this #144?
16:54:57 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/144 -> Issue 144 [Editorial] capitalization of "SPARQL string", "SPARQL Query string", and "SPARQL Update string" (by TallTed) [documentation]
16:54:59 <TallTed> gkellogg: question of reifies vs asserts has been open for a year ... we need to resolve it somehow
16:55:13 <doerthe> item 12
16:55:50 <TallTed> tl: these are https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/220 and https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/144
16:55:50 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/144 -> Pull Request 144 No connection between propositions and facts in model-theoretic semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR] [spec:enhancement]
16:55:50 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/220 -> Pull Request 220 Annotations on assserted triples are based on operational semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR]
16:56:13 <TallTed> ... those are prerequisites for me to finish drafting something
16:57:02 <TallTed> [ adjourned ]
16:57:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
17:25:51 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:27:17 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:40:26 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:44:00 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-star
17:54:19 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:58:08 <TallTed> Zakim, end meeting
17:58:08 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been tl, ora, AndyS, pchampin, gkellogg, niklasl, doerthe, ktk, james, william-vw, Souri
17:58:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:58:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim
17:58:17 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, TallTed; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:58:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
17:58:20 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
17:58:20 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-actions.rdf :
17:58:20 <RRSAgent> ACTION: niklasl to take a stab at the paragraph differentiating c at this stage [1]
17:58:20 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-irc#T16-21-32
17:58:20 <RRSAgent> ACTION: doerthe to try to revise the text now in appendix b [2]
17:58:20 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-irc#T16-29-25
17:58:20 <RRSAgent> ACTION: james to draft PR replacing `data model` with `abstract syntax` (and vice versa?) to see what happens [3]
17:58:20 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-irc#T16-38-33
17:58:20 <RRSAgent> ACTION: lisp to draft PR replacing `data model` with `abstract syntax` (and vice versa?) to see what happens [4]
17:58:20 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-irc#T16-39-19
17:58:20 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pchampin to take a stab at https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/183 [5]
17:58:20 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/08/07-rdf-star-irc#T16-49-19
<TallTed> present+