Re: [TF-PP] Possible starting points

1/ Property paths only mention IRIs or prefixed names.

+1

The most conservative choice. Still need to relate to entailment.

2/ Property paths with variables and IRIs or prefixed names.
(issues include restriction of what can be asked a la ?p* discussion)

0

or a joker syntax that matches any property 

+1


3/ With access to the length of the path matched
Issues include how multiple paths between two nodes are handled (two lengths possible).

+1

4/ With access to the path matched (path-valued variables is one possibility)
Issues as 3 + what is a path value "datatype".

+1

and a statement that enables to enumerate the path triples :

path ?path {?x ?p ?y}

+1

For all of them: add an option to have

5/ A mechanism that will allow a variety of path matching schemes, and provide one such system.
Roughly, this would involve defining syntax so various different approaches can at least use common syntax but choose from 1-4 as to what the WG describes in this round of standardization and show the relationship to the syntax. E.g having a PATH keyword idea in [1].

Then

6/ Do nothing in this round - too early to standardise.

-1