Re: Event Updated: RDF-star WG biweekly long meeting

I don’t find Peter’s categrization [0][1] very helpful. I tried to compare it with mine [2],

> - type or token
>  (and if token: direct or indirect identification)
> - asserted or unasserted
> - referentially opaque or transparent
> - triple or graph

but I’ve given up soon enough. Already his first option Syntax 1/ can mean anything. The other three options are "triple terms", "graph terms", or "both". That’s seems to be a decision for types, but later remarks [1] seem to contradict that. Un-assertedness is not mentioned, although it was an important request in the RDF* CG . Opacity is discussed as a semantics issue, but the syntax with which the current design of RDF-star introduces it is deeply problematic. 

A second look reveals the source of the problem. Peter first picks 4 syntactic options. He says "As far as syntax goes I see many options. I have picked four options out of many". That seems arbitrary and it also seems questionable to base everythig on syntax. He then goes on: "As far as concepts goes I have picked four options that align with the syntax options above." So the arbitrary choice of syntax, a questionable starting point in itself, informs a necessarily arbitrary choice of options on concepts. The choice of possible semantics is motivated analoguously: "As far as semantics goes there are again several options that I see that align with the concepts options above." So Peters categorization is arbitrary from start to finish. 

The approach reflects the stance that riddled the RDF*/star effort from the beginning: it’s always about what seems to be easy to do within the constraints of RDF, and the hard conceptual questions about complications lurking beneath the simplistic surface are constantly dodged and ignored. That's early optimization.

I hope that we can quickly turn towards a discussion about what we *need*, then pragmatically determine how much effort those needs require, in which combinations (because there are important interdependecies, e.g. opacity and unssaertedness are deeply connected) and then decide which combination seems to give the most bang for the buck, introduces no new complexities and in general doesn’t lead us into a future impasse.


On a completely practical note I can add to the list of criteria that Dydra is opposed to anything that requires a new term in the abstract syntax, because that leads to the possibility of having to touch a huge amount of code. Anything that is based on an existing construct, like graphs and literals or even RDF standard reification, doesn’t.


Best,
Thomas


[0] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Nov/0031.html
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Dec/0011.html
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Dec/0006.html
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Dec/0010.html


> On 6. Dec 2023, at 12:38, Adrian Gschwend (W3C Calendar) <noreply+calendar@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> View this event in your browser RDF-star WG biweekly long meeting Upcoming Confirmed 07 December 2023, 11:00 -12:55 America/New_York 
> Event is recurring every other week on Thursday, starting from 2023-10-12, until 2024-12-31 
> RDF-star Working Group   Agenda
> For our next meeting, I suggest that we use Peter's email from a few weeks ago as the basis for our discussion:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2023Nov/0031.html
> Peter's email outlines several options in three key areas: syntax, concepts, and semantics. These include different approaches to the integration of triple and graph terms and their implications for RDF semantics. We anticipate that the contributions initiated this week by Niklas, Thomas & Souri will add further nuance to these options, but Peter's framework provides a comprehensive starting point for our dialog.
> We look forward to a productive discussion.
> Scribe: Hartig, Olaf & Patel-Schneider, Peter
>   Joining Instructions
> Instructions are restricted to meeting participants. You need to log in to see them. 
>   Participants Groups
>     • RDF-star Working Group (View Calendar)
> Report feedback and issues on GitHub. <event.ics>

Received on Thursday, 7 December 2023 11:53:25 UTC