- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 12:51:10 -0400
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
It would be useful to have pointers to implementations of RDF-star and
SPARQL-star that conform to the definitions in the community group report.
Ideally the pointers would be sufficient to allow working group member to try
out the implementations.
peter
On 3/31/23 15:45, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> Joining the discussion a bit late, sorry
>
> On 27/03/2023 20:42, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>> Also, I believe that the semantics I propose is compatible with SPARQL-star
>> (as defined currently) in the sense that, for any RDF-star graph Q if you do
>> ASK { Q } on a dataset that only contains a default graph G, the answer is
>> "true" iff G az-entails Q (this may have to be verified).
> From my reading of your proposal, it also seems to me that this az-entails is
> compatible with SPARQL-star,
> and for that reason I like it very much (1) :)
>
> Indeed, to answer Peter's question about "what do you want", I think "being
> compatible with the current definition of SPARQL-star" should be high on our
> list. Because SPARQL-star has been largely implemented already, and if many
> people do not really care about the subtleties of the semantics, I believe
> they care about SPARQL.
>
> Which of course does not mean that we should not /also/ look closely at use cases!
>
> pa
>
> (1) Also, I find the definition of the proposed semantics quite elegant,
> especially how it nicely extends to az-RDF reificaion interpretations. Kudos.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2023 16:51:16 UTC