Re: victory is not declared, but won

> On 30. Nov 2023, at 14:18, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

Absolutely. in the nested graph proposal we provide a reference to any graph, either user-defined or blank.
 
> 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 if it can achieve that with named graphs, then that woud be good for everybody. You were always arguing for simple primitives that enable a lot of uses. I’m all for that.

> > 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

Yes to all that. 

But you didn’t provide what I explicitly asked for: arguments and examples for why we shouldn’t use named graphs for annotation purposes. I designed nested graphs to work around the issues discussed in the RDF 1.1 WG note - and successfully so, I believe. What else is there? What could break if we define the usage of named graphs for annotation purposes in a semantically sound way, without touching any other usage of named graphs? I really can’t see the problem and I can’t meaningfully address a concern that is so hypothetical and unconcrete. I also can’t see a reason to let this concern guide the design of annotations in RDF if it stays so vague.

Thomas

Received on Thursday, 30 November 2023 14:08:00 UTC