Re: expanding work from quoted triples to graph terms

Hi Peter,

Regarding the SPARQL work that needs to be done (to extend SPARQL for
an RDF with quoted triples / triple terms), I would say that the main
conceptual work is already done (available in the CG report) and the
only thing that remains is to carry these extensions over into the
corresponding REC-track documents.

Why did this not happen so far? As one of the editors of the main
SPARQL-related document (sparql-query), and probably the same holds for
the other editors, I was hesitant to start putting any effort into this
while it appeared that RDF was still a moving target. More
specifically, it was not clear whether a new definition of the
semantics of quoted triples would require a change to the evaluation
semantics of BGPs (as currently defined in the CG report). Recently, as
far as I understand because I wasn't there, one of the Semantics Task
Force meetings confirmed that such a change would not be necessary.
While this would have been the point to start carrying over the SPARQL-
related content from the CG report, roughly at the same time, the
discussion about moving to graphs rather than quoted triples emerged,
which again made me wait with putting any effort into carrying over the
SPARQL-related content.

Yet, again, if the group decides to stick to quoted triples, it will
not be difficult to get done with the related changes for SPARQL.

Best,
Olaf


On Thu, 2023-10-19 at 12:56 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> The charter of this working group is very explicit its goal is to add
> quoted 
> triples to RDF, and no other additions.  Renaming this new construct
> to triple 
> terms is a reasonable change as all it does is change terminology and
> not 
> implementation.  But my view is that expanding from quoted triples to
> quoted 
> graphs or graph terms is a major expansion.  I'm not against this
> expansion 
> but I believe that the working group should first do the work that it
> is 
> chartered to do and only then explore something else.
> 
> So what else is needed to add triple terms to the RDF documents
> (ignoring the 
> SPARQL documents for now)?   As far as I can tell the only technical
> work for 
> the RDF documents that remains is semantics.   But semantics appears
> to be 
> dependent of use cases.
> 
> So my suggestion is that the working group take a look at the use
> cases (and 
> potentially submit new use cases) and determine which ones the
> working group 
> will support.  Then a semantics that supports these use cases can be
> devised. 
> Once this is done then the working group can look at graph terms if
> it so decides.
> 
> There is also SPARQL work to be done and this should also be
> prioritized over 
> work on graph terms.
> 
> peter
>

Received on Friday, 20 October 2023 07:28:09 UTC