Re: Topic this week

I'd like to give a 5 minutes talk. I'm not sure exactly which of the 3 
strategies I'm advocating, but there are a few things I would like to 
voice about how we should pick one.

On 26/10/2023 12:58, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>