Re: Topic this week

Dear all,

This sounds great!

Based on what I just sent to the list (and before), I feel obliged to
attempt a presentation representing classification 1 ("keen on keeping
the abstract syntax closely aligned with RDF
1.1, emphasizing named graphs and their semantics").

All the best,
Niklas


On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 11:48 PM Lassila, Ora <ora@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> 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 21:56:04 UTC