- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 11:38:06 -0500
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
I was thinking about Gregg's enumeration of the possibilities and came to the conclusion that there are more choices. What I see are choices in three areas: syntax, concepts, and semantics. As far as syntax goes I see many options. I have picked four options out of many, not further investigating things like RDFn, singleton properties, etc. 1/ No change to RDF 1.1. This does not preclude adding new concepts to RDF. 2/ Adding syntax for triple terms, a.k.a. quoted triples, as the working group is doing. This does not require adding new concepts to RDF. 3/ Adding syntax for graph terms, a.k.a. quoted graphs. This does not require adding new concepts to RDF. 4/ Adding syntax for both triple terms and graph terms. As far as concepts goes I have picked four options that align with the syntax options above. 1/ No change to RDF 1.1. Triple term syntax, if added, would be shorthand for existing RDF 1.1, i.e., reification or a similar vocabulary, possibly with a requirement that a triple term always expands using the same central node. Graph term syntax, if added, would be shortand for existing RDF 1.1, i.e., named graphs, possibly with a requirement that a graph term always expands to the same named graph. 2/ Adding triple terms as a separate concept to RDF. If there is no new syntax for triple terms then add special vocabulary that ends signals as a triple term, e.g., rdf:Triple as a subclass of rdf:Statement. 3/ Adding graph terms as a separate concept to RDF. If there is no new syntax for graph terms then add special vocabulary that signals a graph term, e.g., rdf:Graph. 4/ Adding triple terms and graph terms. As far as semantics goes there are again several options that I see that align with the concepts options above. 1/ No or very minimal change to RDF 1.1. This probably precludes adding triple terms or graph terms to the concepts of RDF. 2/ Adding triple terms to the semantics. There are several sub-options here having to do with transparency. 3/ Adding graph terms to the semantics. There are several sub-options here having to do with transparency. 4/ Adding both triple terms and graph terms. The course of the working group so far has been syntax option 2, concepts option 2, and semantics option 2. peter
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2023 16:38:13 UTC