16:00:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
16:00:39 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/09/11-rdf-star-irc
16:00:50 <ktk> meeting: meeting:  RDF-Star WG biweekly meeting
16:00:54 <ora> present+
16:00:55 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-star
16:00:57 <ktk> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/40c79d60-8147-4da7-8185-c39434216daf/20250911T120000/
16:00:59 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:00:59 <agendabot> agenda+ Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/09/04-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:00:59 <agendabot> agenda+ Identifying issues to solve before CR -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/8
16:01:02 <AndyS> present+
16:01:06 <pfps> present+
16:01:07 <ora> chair+
16:01:07 <ktk> present+
16:01:23 <Enrico> present+
16:01:24 <niklasl> present+
16:01:32 <Tpt> present+
16:01:36 <tl> present+
16:01:38 <rubensworks> present+
16:01:41 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:01:43 <Tpt> scribe+
16:01:50 <TallTed> present+
16:01:56 <olaf> present+
16:01:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/11-rdf-star-minutes.html AndyS
16:02:05 <pchampin> present+
16:02:05 <gtw> present+
16:02:35 <Dominik_T> Dominik_T has joined #rdf-star
16:02:36 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/09/04-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:02:36 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-rdf-star-minutes.html
16:02:49 <lisp> present+
16:02:49 <Dominik_T> present+
16:02:59 <ktk> RRSAgent, make log public
16:03:42 <fsasaki> present+
16:03:51 <doerthe> doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:03:57 <doerthe> present+
16:03:58 <Tpt> ora: We just eard that gkellog passed away a few days ago. Gregg was a very nice guy and a giant in the semantic web community. I don't really know what else to say
16:04:19 <Tpt> ora: [reading Gregg's wife email]
16:04:38 <pchampin> q+
16:05:54 <Tpt> pchampin: The JSON-LD plan to make a special tribute to Gregg in the JSON-LD 1.1 and 1.2 specs
16:06:23 <ora> ack pchampin
16:06:30 <ora> q+
16:06:53 <ora> ack ora
16:06:53 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-star
16:06:55 <Souri> present+
16:07:22 <Tpt> ora: There were at least 9 published specs with Gregg
16:07:39 <Tpt> s/with Gregg/edited by Gregg/
16:08:15 <Tpt> ora: I would like to include in our spec some kind of dedication to Gregg
16:08:23 <TallTed> +100
16:08:25 <niklasl> +100
16:08:26 <pchampin> +1
16:08:28 <lisp> +1
16:08:30 <Dominik_T> +100
16:08:36 <tl> +1
16:08:41 <doerthe> +1
16:08:51 <olaf> +1
16:09:26 <Souri> +1
16:10:48 <pfps> We should carry on
16:11:02 <ktk> post on semantic web list: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2025Sep/0004.html
16:11:26 <ktk> Zakim, open item 1
16:11:26 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Approval of last week’s minutes: -> 1 https://www.w3.org/2025/09/04-rdf-star-minutes.html -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:11:52 <ora> PROPOSAL: Accept last week's minutes
16:11:55 <tl> +1
16:11:56 <Dominik_T> +1
16:11:56 <Enrico> +1
16:11:57 <Tpt> +1
16:11:58 <ora> +1
16:11:58 <pchampin> +1
16:11:59 <ktk> +1
16:12:01 <doerthe> +1
16:12:02 <AndyS> +1
16:12:03 <niklasl> +1
16:12:04 <lisp> +1
16:12:04 <fsasaki> +1
16:12:06 <olaf> +1
16:12:09 <TallTed> +1
16:12:22 <ora> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes
16:12:28 <rubensworks> +1
16:12:33 <gtw> +1
16:12:37 <ora> zakim, next item
16:12:37 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Identifying issues to solve before CR -> 2 https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/8 -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:13:16 <Enrico> q+
16:13:25 <ora> ack Enrico
16:13:33 <Tpt> ora: Let's talk about https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/169
16:13:34 <gb> 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]
16:13:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/11-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:14:10 <Enrico> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/156
16:14:10 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/156 -> Pull Request 156 Better text in Section 5.3 with the purpose of relating triple terms and asserted triples. (by franconi) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
16:15:24 <pfps> q+
16:16:32 <ora> ack pfps
16:16:33 <Tpt> pfps: The change is mostly editorial, the issue is on the last sentence of the change to see if it's suitable or not
16:17:31 <Enrico> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/156#discussion_r2323054539
16:20:03 <Tpt> Enrico: The point is that we have a formal definition of it. We don't want to say "in other words"
16:20:20 <niklasl> q+
16:20:25 <ora> ack niklasl
16:20:27 <Tpt> pfps: Strike it for now. If Someone can come up with something that is true we can insert it later
16:21:10 <TallTed> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/156#discussion_r2341664258
16:21:50 <Tpt> TallTed: new proposal above
16:22:47 <doerthe> q+
16:22:59 <Enrico> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/156#discussion_r2341664258
16:23:00 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/156 -> Pull Request 156 Better text in Section 5.3 with the purpose of relating triple terms and asserted triples. (by franconi) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
16:23:23 <ora> ack doerthe
16:23:25 <lisp> q+
16:23:54 <Enrico> q+
16:23:56 <ora> ack lisp
16:24:04 <Tpt> doerthe: What is wrong with the previous formulation
16:24:21 <ora> ack Enrico
16:24:46 <Tpt> Enrico: It would be wrong because "denotation" talks about triple in the graph but it's not the case
16:25:40 <ora> PROPOSAL: Merge https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/156
16:26:05 <ora> +1
16:26:08 <niklasl> +1
16:26:11 <Dominik_T> +1
16:26:14 <TallTed> +1
16:26:18 <Enrico> +1
16:26:20 <lisp> -> enrico, if the "asserted triples" is not synonymous with " the triples in a graph", how can the former be untrue?
16:26:23 <pchampin> +1
16:26:26 <pfps> +1
16:26:27 <tl> +1
16:26:34 <AndyS> +1
16:26:40 <olaf> +1
16:26:41 <lisp> +0
16:26:53 <gtw> +0
16:26:57 <ktk> +1
16:26:57 <doerthe> +1
16:26:57 <pchampin> lisp: because in the text we are discussing, we are considering an interpretation independently of any graph
16:26:58 <rubensworks> +0
16:27:00 <fsasaki> +1
16:27:03 <Souri> +0
16:27:17 <ora> RESOLVED: Merge https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/156
16:27:17 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/156 -> Pull Request 156 Better text in Section 5.3 with the purpose of relating triple terms and asserted triples. (by franconi) [ms:CR] [spec:editorial]
16:27:21 <ora> Woohoo!
16:28:06 <pchampin> q+
16:28:18 <ora> ack pchampin
16:28:23 <pchampin> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/237
16:28:24 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/237 -> Pull Request 237 explain the rdf:reifies is deliberately abstract (by pchampin) [needs discussion]
16:28:54 <Tpt> pchampin: This is the counter part of the one we just discussed, in the hope of clarifying everything on reifiers
16:28:55 <tl> q+
16:29:35 <ora> ack tl
16:30:18 <Enrico> q+
16:30:53 <Tpt> tl: I have been reading though specs in the last days, I came to the conclusion that semantics is indeed not the place to specify rdf:reifies and the reification process. The schema is a very lean definition of rdf:reifies so it should be in concepts. But it's even more vague than I though, I made a PR to state my understanding.
16:31:13 <Enrico> q+ on closing PR #144 in RDF-Semantics https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/144
16:31:14 <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]
16:31:14 <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]
16:32:30 <pfps> q+
16:32:31 <Tpt> tl: I worry that the current state is too vague. I disagree it's a feature, not a bug
16:32:47 <pchampin> q+
16:32:56 <Tpt> tl: I made that rdfs:state proposal, I am fully aware it won't be part of this spec but maybe in the future
16:33:15 <Tpt> tl: In the way it's done now, all the semantic is in the triple term
16:33:19 <ora> ack Enrico
16:33:19 <Zakim> Enrico, you wanted to comment on closing PR #144 in RDF-Semantics https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/144
16:33:45 <niklasl> +1 for closing that now
16:33:57 <Tpt> Enrico: I think https://github.com/w3c/rdf-semantics/pull/144 should be closed without actions
16:34:12 <ora> ack pfps
16:34:38 <Souri> q+
16:34:57 <ora> ack pchampin
16:35:02 <Tpt> pfps: I completely disagree, the wording in concept is adequate, at this point the way ahead is either to vote that everything is fine or have a competing proposal as a PR, then the WG in a very short time could vote to accept it or not
16:35:31 <Tpt> pchampin: tl, our disagreement seems to rely on "reifier denote proposition". There is nothing in either spec that justify that
16:35:41 <Tpt> tl: you are right, it's not there but it should be
16:35:57 <niklasl> It should not be.
16:36:19 <Tpt> pchampin: I disagree, if it should, it should be in SEMANTICS. Denotation is the business of SEMANTICS. You said you agree on what SEMANTICS said
16:36:23 <tl> q+
16:36:47 <ora> ack Souri
16:37:02 <Tpt> Souri: Just to make sure, we are talking about concepts section 1.5
16:37:48 <Tpt> Souri: For readers, is it possible to put a tiny example when you are defining "triple annotation". It always help. I am not sure if the document is the right place but it would be very helpful
16:37:53 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#fig-asserted-triple-term is such an example
16:37:55 <ora> ack tl
16:37:56 <Tpt> ora: I like that
16:38:43 <Tpt> tl: I came to the conclusion that SEMANTICS is a very abstract document. The semantics define the proposition but CONCEPT defines the triple terms.
16:39:15 <AndyS> q+
16:39:38 <Tpt> tl: I hope you can define the semantic via rdf:reifies
16:39:40 <Enrico> q+
16:40:04 <lisp> q+
16:40:22 <ora> ack AndyS
16:40:41 <Tpt> tl: The triple term would be the encoding of the proposition. That's it. Everything else can be defined with rdf:reifies, allowing other properties to define something else
16:41:11 <ora> ack Enrico
16:41:14 <Tpt> AndyS: The section 1 is informational, it does not define anything. The semantic comes from triples, not individual terms.
16:41:21 <niklasl> +1 to AndyS ; I agree that it does not stop any other use of triple terms.
16:41:37 <Tpt> Enrico: This is an explanation, saying what triple terms are in 1.5
16:41:55 <tl> q+
16:42:07 <Tpt> Enrico: This does not say you can't have properties for whatever you want.
16:42:11 <Souri> It will be nice to have a single example in 1.5 (of Concepts spec), for illustration purposes: showing say three reifying triples (two of them sharing the same reifier) and then pointing out the reifying triples, the reifiers, and the triple annotation.
16:42:17 <Tpt> Enrico: I would propose this to close it today
16:42:32 <niklasl> also +1 to Enrico; it explains an expected use.
16:43:01 <ora> ack lisp
16:44:05 <pchampin> q+
16:45:12 <Enrico> q+
16:45:21 <niklasl> See https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/pull/62 which adds explanation to rdf-schema (in draft state since we first need Concepts stable).
16:45:22 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/pull/62 -> Pull Request 62 Align Triple-term reification text with Concepts section (pending CR) (by domel)
16:45:24 <Tpt> lisp: The language introduced in the diff, does not help the reader. The structural relationship says nothing about the interpretation. Any interpretation is left to the application.
16:45:32 <ora> ack tl
16:46:59 <Tpt> tl: With rdfs:state, it would not be a problem, it would be a stronger definition. In case of rdfs:mention, and in no way endorses it, I fear is not possible. Concept says "the triple term encode the proposition, if it is asserted in the graph, it also refers to that".
16:47:17 <niklasl> q+
16:47:32 <ora> ack pchampin
16:47:59 <pfps> q+ to state that I see no reason that "mention" is precluded
16:49:10 <Tpt> pchampin: It is generic in the sense that the semantics does not enforce any structure on the property. Every property denote something in the interpretation. The question is that if it's constraint on not by the spec. rdf:reifies is not really constraint outside of its range
16:49:29 <Tpt> pchampin: As pfps suggested, if there is enough support for the PR I put, I propose we merge
16:50:20 <ora> ack Enrico
16:50:29 <Tpt> pchampin: It seems we agree there should be a paragraph on rdf:reifies. If James can make a PR if you think of a better term than "generic", it would be welcome
16:50:48 <ora> q+
16:51:37 <Tpt> Enrico: To answer to James, if we look the text at section 9, there was a notion of type and class. There was a missing part were we talk about rdf:reifies and proposition. What about talking more on rdf:reifies? In RDFS we have more properties related to classes and types, that refers to these concepts
16:52:31 <Tpt> Enrico: We have rdf:reifies that uses the concept of proposition. But it's not use anywhere else, so you can't say more about it.
16:52:51 <Tpt> Enrico: We have a special property rdf:reifies for the users to introduce the reifiers, but it's not format
16:52:58 <niklasl> q?
16:53:02 <niklasl> q-
16:53:02 <Tpt> s/but it's not format/but it's not formal/
16:53:12 <lisp> q+
16:53:19 <Souri> s/ not use anywhere / not used anywhere /
16:53:25 <Tpt> Enrico: In semantics we should not say more than we say about class, but then there are the usual patterns
16:53:56 <ora> ack pfps
16:53:56 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to state that I see no reason that "mention" is precluded
16:54:08 <Tpt> Enrico: I think we cannot do much more in section 9 because there is no structural properties. On the other hand, it's interesting to do a good job on RDF concepts
16:54:26 <Tpt> pfps: I am puzzled as why there is anything in our documents that prevents "mention"
16:54:40 <tl> q+
16:54:43 <ora> ack ora
16:55:34 <Tpt> ora: To clarify, the thing that worries me is that we venturing again in the temporal progression of the graph, which is completely outside of what we are considering
16:55:40 <pchampin> q+
16:55:45 <Tpt> tl: I am talking about view points, not endorsed statement
16:55:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/11-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:56:10 <Enrico> q+
16:56:15 <ora> ack lisp
16:56:18 <Enrico> q-
16:57:17 <Tpt> lisp: The core of my concern is that the annotation that are applied to the subject of the reifying statement have no necessary bearing on the assertion of the proposition in the graph
16:57:36 <tl> q-
16:58:06 <Enrico> to lisp: I blelieve that your concern is addressed in section 1.5 of RDF concepts
16:58:48 <pfps> q+ to make a modest suggestion
16:58:53 <Tpt> lisp: Enrico, post a very short message to the WG about if assertions on the subject of the reifying statement are intended to be assertions on the reifying statement [badly worded, please fix]
16:59:23 <Enrico> my answer: section 1.5
16:59:30 <pfps> q+ to make a modest proposal
16:59:56 <ora> ack pchampin
17:00:26 <pfps> q-
17:01:11 <Tpt> pchampin: tl, about weaker properties than rdf:reifies, a triple does not endorse an other triple. A graph can endorse/entail a given triple. A reifying triple cannot endorse the reified triple
17:01:33 <niklasl> +1 to pchampin
17:01:41 <pfps> ditto
17:01:51 <Enrico> +1 to pchampin
17:02:07 <pfps> pfps has left #rdf-star
17:02:22 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:02:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/11-rdf-star-minutes.html pchampin
17:16:47 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
17:18:27 <pchampin> RRSAgent, bye
17:18:27 <RRSAgent> I see no action items