Re: Overview of options

An extra column could be the effect on the RDF Data Model.
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-rdf-graph

What new RDF terms are there?

---

Based on the strawpoll last week, can we settle on "graph term" and 
"occurrence"?

Are there any other conceptual items?

"occurrence" has been used in CG and WG discussions.

A graph term is a graph used as a RDF term in the RDF data model. It's 
quoted triple (triple term) but for graphs. (It has value-equality 
(structural equality)).

Using this terminology is not implying any particular choice of semantics.

There is work-in-progress going on
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/67

so bringing that PR conversation together with the "options" would be a 
way forward.

---

My understanding at the moment is that the "blank graph" variants are 
compatible with the graph component of a named graph pair [*] being a 
graph term.


"Blank graph" variants:
_:a { :s :p :o }

{ :s :p :o } is a graph term, _:a is a resource for the occurrence.

"Graph terms"
_:a rdf:occurrenceOf{ :s :p :o }

{ :s :p :o } is a graph term, _:a is a resource for the occurrence.

     Andy

[*] A named graph is a pair (resource reference, graph)
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-named-graph

On 20/10/2023 17:17, Niklas Lindström 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 17:20:34 UTC