Re: Topic this week

I'd like to 5 minute talk on using these proposals over the web.

     Andy

> 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 Thursday, 26 October 2023 10:58:11 UTC