- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 10:48:52 -0400
- To: "Lassila, Ora" <ora@amazon.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Yes, I would like to give a presentation arguing against 1 and 3. peter On 10/24/23 17:47, Lassila, Ora 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 Wednesday, 25 October 2023 14:48:58 UTC