W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-n3-dev@w3.org > January 2019

Meeting of N3-dev group:January 21st at 17:00 UCT

From: Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@ugent.be>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:34:01 +0100
To: public-n3-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <d50ec99d-379e-ad56-5ed9-38b6de842b12@ugent.be>
Dear all,

for our meeting at

*January 21st at 17:00 UCT*

I would propose to use *Skype *(unless anyone has another suggestion, 
this is a rather random choice). I created a group for that and if you 
directly contact me on skype (*my skype name* is: *doerthe.arndt*), I 
will add you to that group.

The purpose of the meeting is to get aligned and to prioritize our tasks 
(as an inspiration of possible things we could do, see the list below 
and the discussion which has started on git: 
https://github.com/w3c/N3/issues, I encourage everyone to extend our 
list of issues there).

I am looking forward to "meeting" you next week.
Kind regards,
Doerthe



Th meeting takes place at:

Am 18.12.18 um 19:37 schrieb Doerthe Arndt:
>
> Dear all,
>
> He already mentioned it, but I would like to repeat that Sandro 
> created a new git-repo for us where we can continue our discussions 
> and add a list of existing N3 implementations: 
> https://github.com/w3c/N3/blob/master/README.md
>
> Thank you, Sandro.
>
> I furthermore closed the doodle and fixed January 21st at 17:00 UCT 
> for our first meeting. Hope that many of you can join. I will send a 
> separate Mail about this meeting later.
>
> Kind regards,
> Doerthe
>
> Am 11.12.18 um 18:03 schrieb Doerthe Arndt:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Now that Dave offered to provide us a W3C git (thank you once 
>> again!), we should move on to the next point and identify the topics 
>> we want to work on. I set up a doodle to find the right time for a  
>> first meeting. Based on your answers so far, I thought that 16:00 UCT 
>> was the best time for such a meeting but if you think differently 
>> just let me know and I will adapt the doodle:
>>
>> https://doodle.com/poll/h7xrxhuwfvy8aqmu
>>
>> The list of open topics we discovered so far was (note that is an 
>> open list, I just summarize here what I remember):
>>
>>   * Provide a *formal semantics *for N3, open issues there:
>>       o *Implicit quantification:* scoping of universal variables and
>>         existential variables (blank nodes)
>>       o *Explicit quantification: *what is the scope of @forSome and
>>         @forAll? Do we want to allow any URI as variable?
>>       o *Meaning of built-in functions: *we need to agree on
>>         built-ins we want to see as part of N3 logic and formalise them.
>>       o *Meaning of cited formulas: *we need to agree on one
>>         formalisation for the meaning of cited formulas.
>>       o *Formalisation of a proof calculus *(but this can only be
>>         done after fixing the meaning of formulas).
>>       o *Lists: *lists are treated differently in RDF and N3 do we
>>         want to keep that? than we should clarify the relations of
>>         the standards.
>>
>>
>>   * To agree on formal semantics we really should focus on the
>>     expected *use cases* and here I would like to get some insights*.
>>     *We especially need to know:*
>>     *
>>       o *Which built-ins do we need?* Candidates are the ones which
>>         are already implemented for Cwm
>>         (https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/CwmBuiltins), or the one
>>         identified by the RIF working group
>>         (https://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/) or we could also look into
>>         the different functions which are available in SPARQL filters.
>>       o *How do want to use cited graphs: *There is a whole list how
>>         the related concept TriG could be understood
>>         (https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-datasets/). Behind these there
>>         are for sure applications which drove the definition*s *and I
>>         think it could help to understand what these were. But I also
>>         think that all of you have ideas how to use the concepts, so
>>         maybe we could create examples?*
>>         *
>>       o *How expressive does the rule reasoning need to be? *This
>>         will influence how we formalise the quantification, so I
>>         would like to know where you want to use N3 reasoning for.
>>
>>
>>   * We should also keep the *relation to other standards* close:
>>       o we should try to align with RDF where possible
>>       o do we need a JSON-LD specification?
>>       o what is the position towards TriG? Reification? RIF?
>>
>>
>>   * Together with the formalisation we should also discuss whether we
>>     provide a reference implementation together
>>
>> I would like to add these topics to the git as soon as we have it, we 
>> can also all propose new issues, discuss them there and prioritize. I 
>> hope that we end up with a short list of things we all tackle together.
>>
>> So, for a first step, please fill in the doodle till the end of the week.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Doerthe
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dörthe Arndt
>> Researcher Semantic Web
>> imec - Ghent University - IDLab | Faculty of Engineering and Architecture | Department of Electronics and Information Systems
>> Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 19, 9052 Ghent, Belgium
>> t: +32 9 331 49 59 | e:doerthe.arndt@ugent.be  
> -- 
> Dörthe Arndt
> Researcher Semantic Web
> imec - Ghent University - IDLab | Faculty of Engineering and Architecture | Department of Electronics and Information Systems
> Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 19, 9052 Ghent, Belgium
> t: +32 9 331 49 59 | e:doerthe.arndt@ugent.be  

-- 
Dörthe Arndt
Researcher Semantic Web
imec - Ghent University - IDLab | Faculty of Engineering and Architecture | Department of Electronics and Information Systems
Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 19, 9052 Ghent, Belgium
t: +32 9 331 49 59 | e: doerthe.arndt@ugent.be
Received on Monday, 14 January 2019 15:32:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 14 January 2019 15:32:59 UTC