Meeting minutes
Approval of last week’s minutes: 1
ora: any concerns about minutes?
<pfps> not from me
ora: not hearing any
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve last week's minutes
<pfps> +1
<ora> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<ktk> +0
<niklasl> +1
<TallTed> +1
<AndyS> +1
<tl> 0 (haven't participated)
<lisp> +1
<olaf> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes
Identifying issues to solve before CR 2
https://
<Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about horizontal review
AndyS: can we start with the ones that block horizontal review
… I hoped Pierre-Antoine will be here so he could explain what it means
ora: there is a document mentioned in my mail but I'm not sure if this is helpful
… to me it's not immediately obvious which ones would be more critical in this respect.
pfps: there was an issue on normative things but there was a PR on it so it closed the issue.
… Those appear to be ok.
gkellogg: Merging a PR closes the issue. This gives people an opportunity to disagree with it.
tl: the issue about semantics of reification are two PRs about the same topic.
… Some time we would have to discuss it but it would be good if Enrico is here.
pfps: these issues are blocking other work, they are in my opinion the most important.
… issues:
… w3c/
<gb> Issue 169 definition of reifiers is non-normative and seems vague (by rat10) [needs discussion] [propose closing] [ms:CR]
<gb> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [enhancement] [propose closing] [ms:CR]
<gb> Issue 154 Define an interpretation of propositions relating to their constituents (by niklasl) [propose closing] [ms:CR]
<gb> Pull Request 144 No connection between propositions and facts in model-theoretic semantics (by rat10) [ms:CR] [spec:enhancement]
pfps: and https://
<gb> Issue 133 appendix B update needed (by pfps) [ms:CR] [spec:enhancement]
<gb> Issue 102 Check if the interpolation lemma is still true given the new semantics (by franconi) [ms:CR] [spec:enhancement]
<gb> Issue 139 check correctness of Appendix A (by pfps) [ms:CR] [spec:enhancement]
niklasl: regarding https://
ora: other options?
pfps: sounds good to me.
ora: what do we do about w3c/
pfps: I would not do any changes.
ora: doerthe what is your opinion.
doerthe: I would close them.
tl: I made pull requests as it was requested from me. We did not discuss the issue here, just in the PRs.
… We don't have a model theoretic semantics for that. And I would much prefer if we would have one. pfps gave a sketch on how that might work. But he does not know if we want such a thing.
… I would want to discuss if we want this or not.
pfps: I disagree with that characterization. I don't think we need that. I gave an example of how it could look like if one wants it.
tl: we are tasked with this.
… not giving statements about statements any definition does not do anyone any service.
doerthe: What exactly do you want to discuss of the multiple issues to guide the discussion.
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.
lisp8: After reading the comments I think pfps is correct, the semantics has been specified.
… I believe the definition should be specified as a deliverable, not just discussed.
tl: The charter says is statements about statements, not statements about propositions. So we did not deliver that yet.
ora: but to follow up on doerthe's question, what exactly should change?
tl: my hunch is the model theory doesn't express it but it could be done. that it is sound and complete.
lisp8: pfps proposed a solution for this. We should look at it and say if it does solve it or not.
niklasl: In my opinion this is already said in the documents. Saying it normative does not solve something.
tl: we may have a proper definition of facts, but not about assertions of facts.
pfps: it is unclear to me what such a definition would include. and if it would have any semantic import at all.
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.
… what is missing here?
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 referring to "it".
tl: I'm still worried this is not the case.
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.
ora: it's going back to when things change in a graph. We do not address that though.
… In all the discussions we had we came back to RDF is what it is. It's a simple thing.
… It's not a mandate for the WG to expand the charter to change and define that.
… Let's do the following. Let's vote about this next week.
doerthe: what would we would be voting for or against?
ora: we want to resolve line item 1, 2 and 12.
issues rdf-star #128 and 169 and semanticss 144
<gb> Issue 128 map the annotation syntax to `rdfs:states` (by rat10) [enhancement] [propose closing] [ms:CR]
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.
<tl> +1 to lisp
TallTed: there is this private email mentioned on a regular basis. This message has not been shared to the group as a whole, could it at least be shared with the members of the list or ideally can it be made public.
ora: I'll talk to the author about it.
pfps: it should include the answer we sent out.
<TallTed> inviting him to a special (or regular) session *might* be worthwhile, if that's possible
ora: yes TallTed we could consider that
ora: can we close some issues in the remaining time.
AndyS: how about w3c/
<gb> Issue 163 Move datatypes definitions in RDF-Schema? (by pchampin) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
niklasl: I agree with what AndyS wrote. Schema is more than just the description, as document.
<niklasl> +1 to only core
AndyS: for me defining datatypes is not core. They are important but without them, you still have RDF.
gkellogg: I think we should move it before CR, if we do it.
pfps: how much to move? Do we move all or nothing?
TallTed: what is all?
ora: all datatypes.
AndyS: section 5.1 in RDF concepts
<AndyS> https://
<AndyS> https://
ora: moving the other datatypes would be us giving XML datatypes special treatment.
<TallTed> I think it would be editorial (and good) to drop `built-in` from `XML Schema built-in datatypes` in ¶1 of §5. Datatypes.
niklasl: what about strings and language strings.
gkellogg: I think it would make sense to move them. But the question is what is the definition of a datatype.
<TallTed> +1 gkellogg about moving all of 5.1 and 5.2, and pieces of 5.0
gkellogg: regarding strings and lang strings we have datatype IRIs. But they are not the same way like other datatypes. there is not concrete syntax that is using them explicitly.
lisp8: I would be concerned of what is left of section 5 at all if you do this.
gkellogg: different datatypes had always different requirements for definition and quality.
<niklasl> +1 to gkellogg
<niklasl> and to TallTed (AFAICS)
TallTed: to what would be left: There are some paragraphs left. It could be an example and be left to other documents for discussion.
ora: what would happen if we leave it?
TallTed: nothing, it's just a somewhat weird place.
lisp8: I would strive to be consistent. The section would become completely abstract, which it can. On document level there are advantages to that.
<niklasl> Readers are important.