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

On 31 Jan 2023, at 11:37, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:

Enrico, for instance, was not in the CG and he genuinely wants to understand how things are supposed to work with quoted triples. The CG report is not clear about it, as it provides explanatory text that suggests something, while the formal semantics suggests otherwise. Of course, I understand Ted's frustration as the CG has indeed talked about the semantic issues ad nauseam. But if you want to standardise RDF 1.2, you have to get people from outside the CG. And you can't just expect that they read the 1,000 pages of discussions and listen to hours of audio recording of the calls (recordings that don't exist, by the way).

I don't think that is what Ted implied either.
In my view, everything that is in the CG report is open for discussion. But the efforts that the CG has put in it should not be neglected either.

I agree. I do not accuse Ted of shutting down useful discussions. In fact, during the calls, I was quite relieved when Ted intervened, because it was indeed a bit boring to hear discussions that mirrored what was already discussed in the CG a lot. But at the same time, the CG discussions on semantics did not reach a clear consensus. So how is an outsider supposed to know what can be brought to the debate still? It can be dangerous to block all opposition coming from the outside by simply saying "it has all been discussed already". What, exactly, has been discussed? Are we not missing something? Is everything Enrico (or anyone else) said already covered by the past CG discussions?

For the sake of better managing the time of our calls, I invite Enrico to investigate the CG discussions (from the mailing list archives or Github) and try to keep his reflections concise. But I would also like to see a summary of the salient points of these discussions.
I believe that https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Frdf-star%2Fissues%2F95&data=05%7C01%7Cfranconi%40inf.unibz.it%7Ce190aaa22f8c4aff3f8c08db03774cdc%7C9251326703e3401a80d4c58ed6674e3b%7C0%7C0%7C638107583160286783%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=J41me46oRl%2F1kLzDOFKDl7b9Sij26rKdbEICklPrOmo%3D&reserved=0 provides a good entry point for discussions about RDF-star semantics.

Will do! Thanks for the input.
cheers
—e.