Re: Why is the RDF-star working group standardising RDF 1.2 and SPARQL 1.2?

good afternoon;

> On 27. Jan 2023, at 11:49, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:
> 
> This is an email I have been wanting to write for a long time.
> The subject is a rhetorical question, please do not answer it out of the context of this email.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Here is what I would like to see:
> - RDF-star, a data exchange model for RDF data management. It's not replacing RDF, it is complementary to it.
> - SPARQL-star, a query language for RDF-star and RDF-star datasets.
> - As far as the semantics of RDF-star is concerned, make it critically minimal. Just interpret embedded triples as arbitrary resources.(*) If someone wants to do more reasoning, they can just invent a semantic extension.
> This way, just like RDF datasets define a data model on top of RDF without replacing it, with SPARQL a query language for this model, we would have RDF-star as a data model on top of RDF with a query language for it, mainly for data management purposes, but which does not preclude other usages, just like RDF datasets can be used for many things beyond partitioning graphs. Then there would be no discrepancy between SHACL and RDF, OWL and RDF, RDFa and RDF, and no need to define SPARQL-star entailment regimes. SPARQL Service description could be updated to be able to mention that a system supports SPARQL-star.
> 

+1

members of the community group may have observed that i drew silent at one point.
this is why.

> 
> [...]
> 

---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com

Received on Friday, 27 January 2023 12:20:24 UTC