Re: Overview of options

That’s a nice table, thank you!

I’d like if it also contained a category capturing what RDFn points out: resilience to change, i.e. if queries have to be rewritten when an annotation is added to a statement.

I’m not sure about columns H (I don’t really understand what that refers to, isn’t it more or less a duplicate to C?) and I (see below)

Some more comments below. I’d be in on a call, next friday or otherwise.

Thomas


About Nested Graphs I would say that:

A 10 the name is a name, no need to put it in quotes
B 10 is a clear yes, but the reference to [1] might get a question mark
     rather refer to Ivan Herman’s https://www.w3.org/2009/07/NamedGraph.html
E 10 "and described" doesn’t really describe it.
     Maybe make an extra columns for qualification
     which Nested Graphs explicitly allow, even encourage,
     while other approaches rather seem to shy away from the topic.
F 10 probably, analogous to "RDF-star nested" in F 4, "TriG-nested"
I 10 I’d say yes but who would do that? 
     It is possible to map an asserted and annotated nested triple
     to plain RDF and it is possible to map that to reification
     but since Nested Graphs are not referentially oapque
     why bother with the unstar mapping?
     One could unstar a transcluded graph literal,
     so yes again.


Some remarks w.r.t. the other entries:

A 2  wow, I have never seem that used
E 2  I’d rather say that the RDF reification quad only describes a statement,
     but refers to the event of it being stated, not to the statement itself
B 3  I’d say that’s a clear yes
D 3  dito
I 3  actually, the category is strange.
     I’d reckon that something like the unstar mapping can be defined
     for any approach. Of course it might need different properties.
     But there are already other columns discussing the relevant properties.
B 4  that makes is sound like the TEP was actually a viable approach.
     Last I gleaned from a WG protocol was that it was called "optional".
     Ok, sorry for sarcastic undertone.
B 5  like B 10 - any approach can implement this via a separate mechanism
C 5  pretty clearly tokens IMO
D 5  at least the RDF reification vocab is available
E 5  asserted 
G 5  rather no (each triple is on it’s own) or did i miss a graph syntax?
H 5  triple token



> On 20. Oct 2023, at 18:17, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I picked up the suggestion in the telecon and have drafted an overview
> of the options (and proposals) that (AFAIK) are on the table ("RDF
> options for triples about triples"). Right now it's in a Google
> Spreadsheet at:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pzA5AYkzEO-Mr6ClV4KNjUf4bAsrCz_ZWS9dMEFgh1o/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> I can move this to our wiki [1] if that's preferable. (I think so, but
> it demands a bit more to edit it as a markdown table. Otherwise I can
> grant everyone edit rights one by one, unless we already have a shared
> Google Docs folder I've missed?)
> 
> I'm trying to single out features from these, to simplify assessments.
> I've made some footnotes and questions in the sheet for starters.
> 
> If anyone wants to have a call hashing out these details, I'm all for
> it. (Perhaps we could use next week's cancelled Semantics TF timeslot
> for that? It depends on where we are after the regular call of
> course.)
> 
> All the best,
> Niklas
> 
> [1]: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki
>

Received on Saturday, 21 October 2023 12:41:36 UTC