Re: Work going forward

On 12/01/2023 16:38, Lassila, Ora wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Unfortunately I will miss today’s call.
>
> I have been thinking of the big work items for the next several weeks, 
> and how to get the work accomplished. For things that need to be 
> addressed, we have at least the following:
>
>  1. Semantics: We must accomplish at least the following broad goals:
>     a) RDF-star must be a KR language, this implies that we take a
>     solid formal approach to semantics, and b) RDF-star must remain
>     flexible for those people who want to use RDF (and/or have been
>     using it) in a less formal manner. I think suggestions that would
>     require major changes to how RDF is used are pretty much
>     non-starters. As for semantics, I think that (based on some things
>     I have learned from Peter P-S), perhaps we do not need to delve
>     into modal logics after all.
>  2. Schema definition: In order for RDF-star to be useful in
>     schema/ontology definition, we need new vocabulary, effectively an
>     extension of RDF-Schema. What are the best practices in
>     incorporating RDF-star into schema definition? We need to
>     establish those, and I am afraid that looking into labeled
>     property graphs for answers is futile, given that there really are
>     no schema languages for LPGs. Of course, RDF-star will be very
>     useful for “cross-cutting” aspects like provenance, but even there
>     we may need to be able to do some modeling.
>
> For administrative things (like naming, repositories, etc.), I suggest 
> that we form task groups (of volunteers) to address them, because I do 
> not want the whole WG’s time in meetings to be spent on these.
>
For the naming thing, I believe that we can settle it today. he 
discussion has been open on github [1] for a while; people with an 
opinion have expressed it. There are a few controversial point that we 
could submit to vote :

* 12 vs 1-2
* rdf12-syntax-XXX vs. rdf12-XXX
* rdf12-[syntax-]rdfxml vs rdf12-[syntax-]xml
* sparql12-results-XXX vs sparql12-XXX (I separate it from the -syntax- 
one, because keeping -results- here means we do not change the short 
name, except for the version, which has some benefit)

* the following changes are, I think, not controversial, but we can have 
a vote if someone requests it
   - rdf-mt becomes rdf-semantics
   - sparql12-overciew becomes sparql12-concepts (similar to rdf12-concepts)
   - sparql12-http-rdf-update becomes sparql12-graph-store-protocol
   - ...-sparql-xmlres becomes sparql12-[results-]xml

* once all this is out of the way, we vote on the list of names, and 
close the issue

[1] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/4


> Thoughts?
>
> Ora
>
> -- 
>
> Dr. Ora Lassila
>
> Principal Technologist, Amazon Neptune
>