16:00:42 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star 16:00:47 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/08/21-rdf-star-irc 16:00:47 olaf has joined #rdf-star 16:00:57 meeting: RDF-Star WG biweekly meeting 16:01:04 TallTed has joined #rdf-star 16:01:08 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e39fe026-428e-4736-8476-cb179725a892/20250821T120000/ 16:01:09 clear agenda 16:01:09 agenda+ Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-rdf-star-minutes.html 16:01:09 agenda+ Identifying issues to solve before CR -> 2 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2025Jul/0027.html 16:01:13 niklasl has joined #rdf-star 16:01:26 present+ 16:01:38 present+ 16:01:39 present+ 16:01:39 present+ 16:01:42 chair+ 16:01:50 present+ 16:01:50 present+ 16:02:05 present+ 16:02:56 regrets+ gtw 16:02:57 present+ 16:03:00 scribe+ 16:03:02 Zakim, next item 16:03:02 agendum 1 -- Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/08/14-rdf-star-minutes.html -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:03:15 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:03:16 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/21-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 16:03:18 RRSAgent, make log public 16:03:40 Zakim, open item 1 16:03:51 AndyS has joined #rdf-star 16:03:51 ora: any concerns about minutes? 16:03:59 not from me 16:04:02 present+ 16:04:12 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/08/15-rdf-star-minutes.html 16:04:13 ... not hearing any 16:04:14 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/08/22-rdf-star-minutes.html 16:04:32 PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes 16:04:34 +1 16:04:35 +1 16:04:44 +1 16:04:44 +0 16:04:44 +1 16:04:54 regrets+ pchampin 16:04:54 +1 16:04:58 +1 16:05:08 0 (haven't articipated) 16:05:26 +1 16:05:27 +1 16:05:28 s/articipated/participated/ 16:05:30 RESOLVED: Approve last week's minutes 16:05:35 s/articipated/participated 16:05:41 Zakim, next item 16:05:41 agendum 2 -- Identifying issues to solve before CR -> 2 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2025Jul/0027.html -- taken up [from agendabot] 16:06:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/21-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed 16:06:32 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/8 16:06:49 q+ to ask about horizontal review 16:07:02 ack AndyS 16:07:02 AndyS, you wanted to ask about horizontal review 16:07:43 lisp8 has joined #rdf-star 16:07:48 AndyS: can we start with the ones that block horizonal review 16:08:05 ... I hoped Pierre-Antoine will be here so he could explain what it means 16:08:16 doerthe has joined #rdf-star 16:08:22 ora: there is a document mentioned in my mail but I'm not sure if this is helpful 16:08:22 present+ 16:08:51 present+ 16:08:56 q+ 16:09:01 q+ 16:09:04 ... to me it's not immediately obvious which ones would be more critical in this respect. 16:09:39 ack pfps 16:10:05 pfps: there was an issue on normative things but there was a PR on it so it closed the issue. 16:10:14 ... Those appear to be ok. 16:10:59 gkellogg: Merging a PR closes the issue. This gives people an opportunity to disagree with it. 16:11:15 q? 16:11:24 q+ 16:11:36 ack tl 16:12:03 present+ 16:12:11 tl: the issue about semantics of reification are two PRs about the same topic. 16:12:25 ... Some time we would have to discuss it but it would be good if Enrico is here. 16:12:28 ack pfps 16:12:49 pfps: these issues are blocking other work, they are in my opinion the most important. 16:13:08 ... issues: 16:13:10 ... https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/169 16:13:11 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/169 -> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing] [ms:CR] 16:13:20 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 16:13:21 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 -> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [enhancement] [propose closing] [ms:CR] 16:13:34 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/154 16:13:34 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/154 -> Issue 154 Define an interpretation of propositions relating to their constituents (by niklasl) [propose closing] [ms:CR] 16:13:44 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/144 16:13:45 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] 16:13:51 q+ 16:14:38 ack niklasl 16:14:41 pfps: and https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/102, https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/133 and https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/139 depend on it 16:14:41 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/133 -> Issue 133 appendix B update needed (by pfps) [ms:CR] [spec:enhancement] 16:14:41 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/102 -> Issue 102 Check if the interpolation lemma is still true given the new semantics (by franconi) [ms:CR] [spec:enhancement] 16:14:41 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/issues/139 -> Issue 139 check correctness of Appendix A (by pfps) [ms:CR] [spec:enhancement] 16:15:38 niklasl: regarding https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/154, I can accept to close this, because I have referenced it in other issues. I do not require any changes to the documents. 16:15:59 ora: other options? 16:16:03 pfps: sounds good to me. 16:18:41 ora: what do we do about https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/169 and https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 16:18:49 Souri has joined #rdf-star 16:18:55 present+ 16:18:57 pfps: I would not do any changes. 16:19:05 ora: doerthe what is your opinion. 16:19:11 doerthe: I would close them. 16:19:35 q+ 16:20:08 tl: I made pull requests as it was requested from me. We did not discuss the issue here, just in the PRs. 16:21:49 ... We don't have a model theoretic semantics for that. And I would much prefer if we would have one. pfps gave a scetch on how that might work. But he does not know if we want such a thing. 16:22:02 ack pfps 16:22:04 ... I would want to discuss if we want this or not. 16:22:49 pfps: I disagree with that characterizations. I don't think we need that. I gave an example of how it could look like if one wants it. 16:22:59 tl: we are tasked with this. 16:23:09 q+ 16:23:16 ack doerthe 16:23:17 q+ 16:23:29 ... not giving statements about statements any definition does not do anyone any service. 16:24:06 q+ 16:24:08 doerthe: What exactly do you want to discuss of the multiple issues to guide the discussion. 16:24:42 ack pfps 16:25:15 q+ 16:25:25 ack lisp 16:25:27 pfps: we are in the same situation we were in the past. I claim we are fine, there is the counter-claim we are not fine. But I have no idea what is wanted to satisfy the counter-claim. I claim we have a semantics that supports the deliverable of the WG. 16:25:55 lisp8: After reading the comments I think pfps is correct, the semantics has been specified. 16:26:16 ack tl 16:26:37 ... I believe the definition should be specified as a deliverable, not just discussed. 16:27:46 tl: The charter says is statements about statements, not statements about propositions. So we did not deliver that yet. 16:27:54 q+ 16:28:01 ora: but to follow up on doerthes question, what exactly should change? 16:28:03 q+ 16:28:14 q+ 16:28:16 ack lisp 16:28:20 tl: my hunch is the model theoriy doesn't express it but it could be done. that it is sound and complete. 16:28:24 q+ 16:28:45 ack niklasl 16:28:53 lisp8: pfps proposed a solution for this. We should look at it and say if it does solve it or not. 16:29:27 ack pfps 16:29:40 q+ 16:29:55 niklasl: In my opinion this is already said in the documents. Saying it normative does not solve something. 16:30:15 q- 16:30:16 ack doerthe 16:30:24 ack tl 16:30:36 q+ 16:30:40 tl: we may have a proper definition of facts, but not about assertions of facts. 16:30:56 pfps: it is unclear to me what such a definition would include. and if it would have any semantic import at all. 16:30:58 q+ 16:31:00 ack doerthe 16:32:00 doerthe: I'm trying to find the root of the problem. It's for me hard to understand what you would like to have now. 16:32:22 ... what is missing here? 16:33:06 ack niklasl 16:33:49 niklasl: the distinction here is between truth value. The truth value you cannot with just a reference to the proposition make an interpretation. But if it's true, you are refering to "it". 16:33:59 q+ 16:34:04 ack tl 16:34:33 tl: I'm still worried this is not the case. 16:35:54 niklasl: I think you are asking "do you refer to the fact" and in semantic it's clear that propositions that do XXX *are* facts. 16:36:55 ora: it's going back to when things change in a graph. We do not address that though. 16:37:20 ... In all the discussions we had we came back to RDF is what it is. It's a simple thing. 16:38:09 ... It's not an mandate for the WG to expand the charter to change and define that. 16:38:22 ... Let's do the following. Let's vote about this next week. 16:38:36 q+ 16:38:43 ack doerthe 16:38:55 q+ 16:39:03 q+ 16:39:04 doerthe: what would we voting for or against? 16:39:15 ora: we want to resolve line item 1, 2 and 12. 16:39:47 issues rdf-star #128 and 169 and semantics 144 16:39:48 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/128 -> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [enhancement] [propose closing] [ms:CR] 16:40:22 q? 16:40:27 ack lisp 16:40:58 q+ 16:41:12 ack TallTed 16:41:15 lisp8: my concrete issue: niklasl describes something that seems to be the case. pfps seems to have a formal expression for that. I think it would be useful. I would want to vote about if this should appear in the document or not. To make it concrete. 16:41:29 +1 to lisp 16:42:23 TallTed: there is this private email mentioned on a regular base. This message has not shared to the group as a whole, could it at least be shared with the members of the list or ideally can it be make public. 16:42:50 s/has not shared/has not been shared/ 16:42:57 ack pfps 16:43:01 ora: I'll ask to the author about it. 16:43:06 s/ask/talk/ 16:43:44 pfps: it should include the answer we sent out. 16:44:42 inviting him to a special (or regular) session *might* be worthwhile, if that's possible 16:45:02 ora: yes TallTed we could consider that 16:45:22 ora: can we close some issues in the remaining time. 16:46:02 AndyS: how about https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/163 16:46:03 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/163 -> Issue 163 Move datatypes definitions in RDF-Schema? (by pchampin) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial] 16:47:40 q+ 16:47:45 ack niklasl 16:47:49 q+ 16:48:01 ack AndyS 16:48:10 niklasl: I agree with what AndyS wrote. Schema is more than just the description, as document. 16:48:22 +1 to only core 16:48:26 q+ 16:48:28 AndyS: for me defining datatypes is not core. They are important but without them, you still have RDF. 16:49:41 ack pfps 16:49:41 gkellogg: I think we should move it before CR, if we do it. 16:50:03 q+ 16:50:20 pfps: how much to move? Do we move all or nothing? 16:50:40 TallTed: what is all? 16:50:47 ora: all datatypes. 16:51:01 AndyS: section 5.1 in RDF concepts 16:51:04 https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#xsd-datatypes 16:51:29 q+ 16:51:47 https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-additional-datatypes 16:54:10 ack niklasl 16:54:27 ora: moving the other datatypes would be us giving XML datatypes special treatment. 16:55:48 ack gkellogg 16:55:53 I think it would be editorial (and good) to drop `built-in` from `XML Schema built-in datatypes` in ¶1 of §5. Datatypes. 16:56:01 niklasl: what about strings and language strings. 16:56:03 q+ 16:56:19 gkellogg: I think it would make sense to move them. But the question is what is the definition of a datatype. 16:56:51 +1 gkellogg about moving all of 5.1 and 5.2, and pieces of 5.0 16:56:53 ... regarding strings and lang strings we have datatype IRIs. But they are not the same way like other datattypes. there is not concrete syntax that is using them explicitly. 16:56:53 ack lisp 16:57:15 lisp8: I would be concerned of what is left of section 5 at all if you do this. 16:57:19 q+ 16:57:38 gkellogg: different datatypes had always different requirements for definition and quality. 16:57:52 q+ 16:57:58 ack TallTed 16:58:14 +1 to gkellogg 16:58:48 and to TallTed (AFAICS) 16:59:05 TallTed: to what would be left: There are some paragraphs left. It could be an example and be left to other documents for discussion. 16:59:15 ora: what would happen if we leave it? 16:59:22 TallTed: nothing, it's just a somewhat weird place. 16:59:26 ack ora 17:00:03 q+ 17:00:11 ack lisp 17:00:46 lisp8: I would thrife to be consistent. The section would become completely abstract, which it can. On documentlevel there are advantages to that. 17:00:58 Readers are important. 17:01:21 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:01:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/21-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 17:01:32 olaf has left #rdf-star 17:03:14 s/pparticipated/participated/ 17:03:14 s/horizonal/horizontal/ 17:03:14 s/scetch/sketch/ 17:03:14 s/characterizations/characterization/ 17:03:14 s/doerthes/doerthe's/ 17:03:17 s/theoriy/theory/ 17:03:19 s/refering/referring/ 17:03:22 s/semantic/semantics/ 17:03:25 s/an mandate/a mandate/ 17:03:28 s/we voting/we would be voting/ 17:03:30 s/on a regular base/on a regular basis/ 17:03:32 s/be make/be made/ 17:03:35 s/datattype/datatype/ 17:03:37 s/thrife/strive/ 17:03:40 s/documentlevel/document level/ 17:03:43 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:03:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/08/21-rdf-star-minutes.html ktk 17:23:39 gkellogg has joined #rdf-star 17:40:59 gkellogg has joined #rdf-star 18:53:16 gkellogg has joined #rdf-star 19:02:59 gkellogg has joined #rdf-star 19:05:48 gkellogg has joined #rdf-star 19:15:26 RRSAgent, leave 19:15:26 I see no action items