Re: [External] : labelled property graphs vs -star extension of RDFn vs -star extension of named graphs

Hi Peter,

Since Ted recently commented on my linkedin posting dated 21-SEP-2021 [1]  asking if I had any updates on RDFn draft spec, I worked through the weekend to create a new set of slides based on my latest thoughts on this and posted the slides on linkedin [2] yesterday (dated 11-DEC-2023):  Slides 3-5 cover the concepts, 6-7 show examples, 8-11 compare with RDF-star.

Although the syntax was tweaked a bit in the new version, the basic idea did not change: RDF's <s, p, o> is extended to <s, p, o, n> where n is an IRI representing the name of the triple (or, tName). This easily accommodates the LPG case that you mentioned and goes beyond LPG.

LPG:
:liz :spouse :dick {| :start 1964; :end 1974 |} .
:liz :spouse :dick {| :start 1975; :end 1976 |} .

RDFn: (one of the two tNames could be an auto-generated name, but I used custom-name for both just for simplicity):
:liz :spouse :dick | :term1 .
:liz :spouse :dick | :term2 .
:term1 :start 1964; :end 1974 .
:term2 :start 1975; :end 1976 .

Of course, LPG cannot easily do the following that we can in RDFn:
:term1 :happierThan :term2 .

Thanks,
Souri.

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/souripriya-souri-das-ph-d-48801911_rdfn-name-every-triple-or-quad-manually-activity-6846069087068540928-IKdd?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop


[2] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/souripriya-souri-das-ph-d-48801911_rdfn-rdf-extension-for-unasserted-and-named-activity-7140162410769702912-kuqg?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

[cid:33db1bd9-8e1d-4093-9120-c6233a5c485d]<https://www.linkedin.com/posts/souripriya-souri-das-ph-d-48801911_rdfn-rdf-extension-for-unasserted-and-named-activity-7140162410769702912-kuqg?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop>
Souripriya (Souri) Das, Ph.D. on LinkedIn: RDFn: RDF Extension for Unasserted and Named Triples<https://www.linkedin.com/posts/souripriya-souri-das-ph-d-48801911_rdfn-rdf-extension-for-unasserted-and-named-activity-7140162410769702912-kuqg?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop>
RDFn: A Backward-Compatible RDF Extension for Unasserted and Named Triples.
www.linkedin.com


[cid:8b77ea39-93e5-4045-bbcb-228cf8ed352b]<https://www.linkedin.com/posts/souripriya-souri-das-ph-d-48801911_rdfn-name-every-triple-or-quad-manually-activity-6846069087068540928-IKdd?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop>
Souripriya (Souri) Das, Ph.D. on LinkedIn: RDFn: Name Every Triple or Quad: Manually or Automatically<https://www.linkedin.com/posts/souripriya-souri-das-ph-d-48801911_rdfn-name-every-triple-or-quad-manually-activity-6846069087068540928-IKdd?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop>
Attached a few slides* to go with my recently posted article [1] outlining a new version of RDFn (original version [2]) that minimizes the data creator’s…
www.linkedin.com


________________________________
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 9:18 AM
To: RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Subject: [External] : labelled property graphs vs -star extension of RDFn vs -star extension of named graphs

At the teleconference yesterday I mentioned that there could be user-visible
differences between different views of how to proceed, even when there is some
consensus that different views are essentially the same.

Here is one example of a user-visible divergence.  Consider the following
input, written in the community group syntax.

:liz :spouse :dick {| :start 1964; :end 1974 |} .
:liz :spouse :dick {| :start 1975; :end 1976 |} .

In the community graph version of RDF-star this results in one asserted triple
with subject :liz that is the subject of four triples.  In SPARQL-star, the BGP

:liz :spouse :dick {| :start 1964; :end 1976 |} .

would match against a graph constructed from this input.

In labelled property graphs this would appear to result in two asserted
triples with subject :liz, each with two property-value pairs.  The above BGP
would not match.

So there is a decided visible difference between the community graph version
of RDF-star and labelled property graphs.

If I am correct in reading the (sparse) information available about RDFn, a
-star extension of RDFn would conform to the community group reading.  So
there would be noticeable differences between an extended RDFn and labelled
property graphs.

I am not aware of any proposal for using named graphs that says what the above
would result in there, so it is unclear which side a named graphs version of
-star would fit into.

peter