- From: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 01:13:54 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
> On 23. Jan 2023, at 19:21, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On 23/01/2023 15:50, Thomas Lörtsch wrote: >> In summary it seems that there is no very strong leaning to one side or the other. > > More importantly, has any implementation changed its fundamental design to accommodate quoted triples. More important than if any implementation would have to change its design to accomodate statement identifiers? > I don't know of any. >> Named graphs are an interesting aspect: they have no semantics and are not part of the RDF core. They are designed as a database administrators tool. > That one usage pattern but not the only one. > (There are two data management patterns, at least). > > There were multiple, already in-use, existing patterns/use cases > using multiple graphs in a store. The spec tries to be neutral. I know. Nonetheless, as it stands today named graphs in RDF have no semantics. They can perfectly fine be used for any means that want to stay outside, control or game the semantics (like Explainable AI and versioning for instance). And we will never have one syntactic primitive per usage pattern. > Andy >
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2023 00:14:15 UTC