Re: Setting milestones (Re: marathon)

@Gregg: If they could have, they would have I presume. The background is
here: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/85

I think PA is on to something though. Better to publish a subset soon than
nothing at all. I don't think its a big issue that N3Lite doesn't cover the
Solid use case. Having no semantics clearly didn't stop them from adopting
it. But if the scope of N3Lite could be widened without introducing delays,
go for it.

+1 for obliterating N3Lite after the N3 specification is released :)
Perhaps N3 1.0  and N3 1.1 are more suitable

Best,

Miel



Op ma 4 apr. 2022 om 23:27 schreef Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>:

> This use case might be better served by the Linked Data Patch Format [1]
> (wink wink PA), which is more specifically intended for this, and doesn’t
> require the invention of new semantics for something like
> solid:where/insert/delete.
>
> Gregg Kellogg
> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/ldpatch/
>
> On Apr 4, 2022, at 1:53 PM, Jos De Roo <josderoo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is a crucial piece of N3 for the specification of the Solid Protocol
> more specifically at
> https://solidproject.org/TR/protocol#writing-resources
>
> It uses cited formulae with quickvars (?x), so it is beyond N3-Lite
> but it actually is an excellent and practical use case.
>
> That said, EYE suffers to roundtrip (with --pass) the example in
> https://solidproject.org/TR/protocol#writing-resources
> The n3p code at
>
> https://github.com/josd/n3p/blob/33dde4db84c48467cd9e188744e8f34672675c7e/examples/patch.n3p
> roundtrips fine at
>
> https://github.com/josd/n3p/blob/33dde4db84c48467cd9e188744e8f34672675c7e/result.n3p#L103
>
> jos
>
> -- https://josd.github.io
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 12:43 PM Pierre-Antoine Champin <
> pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 04/04/2022 09:40, Miel Vander Sande wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jos, all
>>
>> Thanks for running this marathon; I think we all very much appreciate EYE
>> and the updates that it got because of this.
>>
>> +42 :-)
>>
>> I'm clearly one of the 33 dormant members of this group, mainly because
>> I'm really unqualified to partake in the discussions (I see N3 as a tool,
>> unwary of the insides), but may I ask:
>> after 42 months, is there a group report in sight? Is there a milestone
>> planned?
>>
>> That's a fair question, and we acknowledged during the call last week
>> that, unfortunately, we are not there yet. Defining a clean definition of
>> N3's semantics is getting in the way, and unfortunately eating a lot of our
>> bandwidth. I probably have my share of responsibility in that latter point,
>> and I apologize for it.
>>
>> Here is an idea that is maybe silly, but maybe can help us make progress
>> : we could focus, for a while, on a strict subset of the N3 language
>> (coined e.g. N3-Lite), and try to get a self-sufficient CG report on that
>> subset. Then we could try to grow this subset (possibly in several
>> incremental steps) until we cover N3 entirely.
>>
>> The subset I have in mind is the following (but that's open for
>> discussion):
>>
>> - quoted graphs are disallowed, expect as the head or body of rules
>> - rules are not encoded as triples, but handled at their own level
>> - quickvars (?x) are only allowed in rules
>> - no explicit quantification
>>
>> I think that defining the semantics of this subset should be relatively
>> easy (compared to full N3), and that it could be done in such a way that
>> all existing N3 implementation already comply with the semantics.  We would
>> therefore have a first level of interoperabilty formally specified.
>>
>> Focusing on N3-lite, we could also come back to our work on builtins
>> (although the most complex ones, such as log:semantics, log:includes, or
>> log:forAll would not be part of N3-lite).
>>
>> I know that this is reminiscent of the different profiles of OWL, which
>> some people in this group don't quite like. Maybe to avoid this issue could
>> we decide that N3-Lite needs to disappear once N3 "full" is properly
>> specified. In any case, I think that N3-Lite could be a useful stepping
>> stone.
>>
>> And is there anything non-expert community members can do to help?
>>
>> Hopefully, the discussions on N3-Lite will be more accessible, and allow
>> for a wider group to engage. At least, that's one of the goal of this
>> proposal.
>>
>>   pa
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Miel
>>
>> Op ma 4 apr. 2022 om 02:01 schreef Jos De Roo <josderoo@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> This group started about 42 months ago
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-n3-dev/2018Nov/
>>> and for me it really feels like a marathon coming to an end.
>>> During this past 42 months we had lengthy discussions
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A3HAUhjaVnnJ6yVbFAvIBRJQjUY9aFlQ2_bGxkD0mnE/edit
>>> and as a result for the eye reasoner there were 244 releases
>>> https://github.com/josd/eye/blob/master/RELEASE
>>>
>>> For me what really remains is n3p which is the eye intermediate p-code
>>> and from now on
>>> I will focus on https://github.com/josd/n3p as a
>>> https://knows.idlab.ugent.be/team/ member
>>> and stay quiet in this N3 community group like most of the other 33
>>> members.
>>>
>>> Thanks and kind regards,
>>> Jos
>>>
>>> -- https://josd.github.io
>>>
>>
>