21 January 2022


AndyS, Dominik, fabio_vitali, gkellogg, olaf, ora, pchampin, rivettp

Meeting minutes

Announcements and newcomers

Dominik: my first time here. I work in University in Poland. subjects RDF and Property Graphs.
… I'm also in the N3 CG, LDBC Schema WG also working on Property Graphs and Schema.

<ora> RDF and PGs, sounds interesting!

Open actions

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction

pchampin: Some of these actions were about reaching out to developers.

ora: I was to write a blog post and to talk to PatH.

pchampin: I ment Olaf :)

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/240

olaf: I emailed Ontotext and Pavel from Star Dog. They both responded.
… Pavel has to check with the rest of the company, and wants to look again at our report.
… In which case many tests may have failed and they may not be excited about publishing.
… What they had implemented was for PG mode, so even we have SA mode, most likely many of their tests will fail.
… I need to follow up with Pavel.
… Ontotext immediately replied that they would be happy to send an implementation report.
… Generally, they're positive and we can expect something sometime.
… OTOH, he also involved RDF4J as they have a shared implementation, and perhaps it makes sense to have a shared report.

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/243

ora: I started on the blog post but got side-tracked by work responsibilities.
… It will be a blog post on the AWS blog.

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/244

ora: I also reached out to Pat Hayes (wonderful credentials).
… We talked about the Neptune 1G effort to unify RDF and PG.
… I explained my take on RDF-star, which I considered to be important, which he understood.
… I said my worry is that we don't open the flood-gates for all kinds of changes to RDF and keep it tightly scoped.
… THen we ended up speaking about his B-Logic proposal. It was an ISWC Keynote in 2009.

<pchampin> Pat Haye's BLogic

pchampin: This pops up regularly, paerticularly in N3 CG

ora: For due diligence, we should read his slides carefully.
… THat said, I want to be sure we keep RDF-star tightly scoped.
… It will be very interesting for many people to read his ideas.

<pchampin> Pat Haye's BLogic talk

<pchampin> that is, if you have a "modern browser" with flash enabled!!

ora: It extends RDF semantics, without replacing any.
… It basically extends RDF to a full 1st order Predicate Calculus.
… It also has an interesting take on Named Graphs.

pchampin: I also posted a version that requires Flash to view.
… The slides are on slideshare, but there was a video lecture where you need flash.
… I agree that B-Logic is interesting, although it goes beyond our tight scope.
… I have some thoughts on defining RDF-star on top of B-Logic.

ora: Interesting is what he calls "surfaces", both negative and positive and neutral.
… This allows you to reason over things that you might not believe in.

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/241

pchampin: This action was on my reaching out to Corese implementers. They have an implementation which complies (mostly).
… THey're willing to upgrade Corese and implement a submission report.

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/242

pchampin: Next is RDF4J.

AndyS: I emailed Jerven, who isn't that keen on submitting a report.
… Theirs tracks more the PG mode of the old spec.
… I haven't pushed them any further, even if it is via reification, I don't know why they couldn't pass the test suite.

pchampin: The semantics might pose a problem for them.

AndyS: I believe they do have an EARL report generator.

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/245

pchampin: The last issue was to create a draft blog post for the CG blog.

<pchampin> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h84N2HnKxc7m-TPH4_Zu4L4ja9NJnKnv70ay6iOLuXo/edit

pchampin: From my perspective, the post is in good shape. Compared with the initial plan, the scope of the post is smaller.
… I thought there was enough content. It focuses on Provenance.
… Including simple statements, and more going on to complex.
… One point was to have some arguments to bring to the issue raised by PFPS a couple of weeks ago about the examples in the report being broken because they don't use intermediary nodes.
… We worked on the Google Doc and not on the mailing list to try to constrain the conversation before it is posted.
… I propose we publish it right now.

<rivettp> looking at it now, I'd liek to chiem in

<rivettp> give me until end of day please

<pchampin> PROPOSAL: publish the CG blog post ASAP

<fabio_vitali> can I have access please? Fvitali@gmail.com

AndyS: I think we should publish it. It's not designed to be a technical document.


<pchampin> +1

olaf: I didn't have a chance to look at it, but if you're fine with it I say go ahead and publish.

<AndyS> +1

<olaf> +0

<rivettp> are we using US English or British English?

<AndyS> English English

<rivettp> in US it's modeling

<rivettp> I'd vote for publishing Monday

fabio_vitali: What kind of feedback are you looking for?

pchampin: The idea was to write it collectively.
… On the blog we would credit the RDF-star task force, so everyone has a chance to contribute.

fabio_vitali: If I have some opinions on the appropriateness would you like comments in the doc, a mail, or what?

pchampin: We can start the conversation here.

fabio_vitali: One problem I have is about the negative example.
… It may be too early to talk about limitations of RDF-star. I also think there's a more correct solution to prevent the errors from occuring.
… The problem may then disappear which could become advice. (using two levels of nesting).

pchampin: I'm not sure I agree in this situation. The goal isn't to claim that the proposed solution is the only way to do it, but to highlight the use of additional nodes.
… A agree that in some cases double-nesting might be a solution.
… Do we agree that the negative example is broken?
… It's not just about bad modeling, it's "lossy".

<rivettp> OK I've finished it now and am happy with it - I suggested some changes e.g. to use "SPARQL-star"

fabio_vitali: I wouldn't say "broken", but yes.

<fabio_vitali> Sorry about the Latin, but this is a case of "Excutatio non petita, accusatio manifesta": if you make excuses that are not requested, you are accusing yourself of something nobody would have cared about.

pchampin: Lets continue discussion into the beginning of next week.

<pchampin> PROPOSAL: publish the CG blog post in the beginning of next week

<pchampin> +1


<AndyS> +1

<rivettp> +1

<olaf> +1

<ora> 1+

<fabio_vitali> +1

<ora> +1

<Dominik> +1

Resolution: publish the CG blog post in the beginning of next week

pchampin: We'll continue the conversation on the Google Doc.

olaf: Since you mention DanBri, I think the final report isn't published on the CG page yet.

pchampin: Yes, I don't think Dan responded to my email.

Action: ping Dan for publishing the final report

<fabio_vitali> I added a comment on the Google Docs message

AndyS: there is a proposal from Oracle for RDFn that addresses some of the PG issues.

<AndyS> https://blogs.oracle.com/oraclespatial/post/rdfn-extending-rdf-to-support-named-triples

AndyS: It's been around for a while, but not sure of its status.

<AndyS> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rdfn-name-every-triple-quad-manually-member-otherwise-das-ph-d-/

AndyS: It's written more from the PG outlook.
… I don't suggest we do anything about it in particular, except that we've noticed it. I don't think its anything more than a theoretical proposal.

pchampin: Should we mention it?

AndyS: Unless we do a comprehensive survey, we would have missed other things likelly.

<fabio_vitali> I have been trying to suggest that rdf-star start thinking about non-asserted named graphs, too

pchampin: Named graphs are introduced, but not the main point.
… It depends on how a property is defined, but ends up with repeated triples.

pchampin: This could be modeled or emulated on RDF-star, as it gives you the ability to refer to a triple.

AndyS: It may be a slightly higher-level model, but it has details to be figured out.

ora: I read Oracle's proposal and found it interesting. I think we should encourage them to join the WG.
… I can reach out to the author.

AndyS: I told them there's going to be a WG.

ora: We found in original RDF group that the more people you bring in the room, the better.

olaf: I wanted to say that he'll probably show up in the WG with this proposal as a counter-proposal.
… I read it some time ago, but didn't think it really did enough and doesn't have clear definitions.

pchampin: I think it makes sense to be pro-active.

fabio_vitali: This article is two years old. I wonder if they've gone on to do something with it, or it just was an arbitrary statement.

AndyS: It was last updated in 2021-09.

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction

pchampin: I created two small PRs to the charter about RDF/XML and additional specifications to be included in the charter.

<rivettp> regarding implementation reports has anyone reached out to Cambridge Semantics for Anzo? They have a presentation about rdf-star on their website

pchampin: This will depend on proposals emerging, and then re-charter to include.
… But, we keep the door open for producing other normative documents.
… We'll focus on the charter in the next call. In the mean time, I'll try to iron out the missing details, but please comment on the issues and PRs.
… I think we need to list all the SPARQL documents so that they can be consistent.
… I'd like us to discuss the charter and consider submitting it to the semweb mailing list before going to the official process.

<fabio_vitali> why "next week"? Not in two weeks?

<fabio_vitali> thanks

pchampin: We also need to find chairs. Ora said he'd considered (IIRC).

<ora> I would consider, depending on my employer's opinion on this.

AndyS: How many chairs are typical now?

pchampin: Now two chairs are most common.

pchampin: We also need to consider editors, but Chairs are most important and need to be on the charter.
… PhilA is probably going to chair the RDF C14N WG.

rivettp: I mentioned Cambridge Semantics.

pchampin: No one has reached out that I know of.

AndyS: I might have a contact.

olaf: I have contacts too, I'll reach out.

Action: olaf to reach out to Cambridge Semantics (Anzo)

<fabio_vitali> thank you and bye

pchampin: back in two weeks.

Summary of action items

  1. ping Dan for publishing the final report
  2. olaf to reach out to Cambridge Semantics (Anzo)

Summary of resolutions

  1. publish the CG blog post in the beginning of next week
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 142 (Tue Jun 1 16:59:13 2021 UTC).