Re: On the TEP semantic extension [was: Re: Revisiting RDF-star semantics (was Re: Why is the RDF-star working group standardising RDF 1.2 and SPARQL 1.2?)]

good morning;

> On 9. Feb 2023, at 01:13, Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:
> 
> Olaf,
> 
>> On 2. Feb 2023, at 00:26, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> wrote:
>> 
>> Thomas,
>> 
>> You are repeating the same two issues that you seem to have with TEPs
> 
> [0] 
> 
>> that you already tried to point out during the CG.
> 
> (see e.g.[1])
> 
>> Can you please elaborate on them a bit more because a) I still don't get them and b) we have some new people here who haven't been in the CG.
> 
> Yes. It’s not my most favorite topic as I would prefer the need for this semantic extension to just go away by defining embedded triples as referentially transparent, but here you go. Also please note that James Anderson also wasn’t [overjoyed] about the proposal and called it too involved for use in production (my words - I hope James is listening and corrects me if I’m not representing his assessment correctly).

yes, that is an accurate paraphrase.

although it may not have been apparent in my reserved reaction, in truth, i viewed the description of how one might implement that mechanism as sufficient demonstration of its deficiencies, that its proponents would either accede to the suggestion, that referential opacity was a matter to be effected through a combination of modelling and entailment - as was suggested very early on the the group's discussions, or would be withdrawn entirely and retained as a matter for academic discussion only.

its acceptance indicated to me that, were we (that is datagraph) to be faced with the necessity to support what is currently drifting towards rdf/sparql-1.2 in its complete form, we would have to entrain the "quoted triple" behaviour in our schematic storage model and operations in a form which contracts the principle, that "quoting" requires an evaluation model, while the core of rdf does not and such matters are instead to be decided at the level of entailment.

the concern is why i do continue to listen to these discussions, with a sense of dread, but in the hope that simplicity will eventually prevail.
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2023 01:44:04 UTC