Re: Topic this week

Yes, and we would be happy if you wanted to give a presentation.

Ora


On 10/24/23, 5:11 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.






Should we speak up here if we want to give a presentation?


peter




On 10/24/23 10:41, Adrian Gschwend wrote:
> Dear group,
>
> Ora, Pierre-Antoine, and I have been discussing the topic for our upcoming
> weekly call.
>
> Upon reviewing the suggestion posted by Peter on the list about "expanding
> work from quoted triples to graph terms", Pierre-Antoine has rightly pointed
> out that we have various perspectives within the group. These can be broadly
> classified as:
>
> 1. Those keen on keeping the abstract syntax closely aligned with RDF 1.1,
> emphasizing named graphs and their semantics.
> 2. Enthusiasts of the CG abstract syntax, particularly "quoted triples" or
> potentially "triple terms".
> 3. Advocates for extending the CG abstract syntax to embrace "graph terms".
>
> Considering the diverse viewpoints, we propose that members with a firm stance
> on any of these options prepare a presentation (around 5 minutes) to
> articulate their arguments.
>
> regards
>
> Adrian
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2023 21:48:15 UTC