- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:18:01 +0000
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On 29/11/2023 22:33, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:> For such reasons I think it
is important that we discuss this in some
> depth. Also, and in any case, I’d like to encourage Andy to provide more
> detail about the problems he sees w.r.t. the installed base of named
> graph implementations. The RDF 1.1 WG Note on dataset semantics
> discusses some, but it seems that he sees more.
Occurrences need to reference-able. URIs are the mechanism for web
references.
The more important point is that this WG, uniquely, is not constrained
to use named graphs.
It can introduce the right conceptual items with the right behaviour
to support the use cases and not be bound by the spectrum of current
named graph usage, SPARQL semantics (GRAPH ?g), or Turtle/Trig syntax.
> But there is very little discussion of what is actually needed in this WG
Yes - we need to do this without discussing in-depth how specific
proposals approach the case.
We will also need one, short motivating example that will go in RDF
Concepts (or decide to publish a new document with a longer
discussion/tutorial).
Andy
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2023 13:18:08 UTC