Re: implementations of the community group report

> On Apr 5, 2023, at 9:51 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

There are some implementations listed on the CG Implementation Report [1]. Test subjects have a link the the project home page.

Gregg

[1] https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/reports/index.html

> 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.
>