- From: Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 12:15:08 +0000
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>
- CC: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
I am not sure whether I will make it to the meeting and I am really curious what all of you have to say. Will you share the slides afterwards? It would be a nice addition to the minutes. Kind regards, Dörthe > Am 26.10.2023 um 14:12 schrieb Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>: > > 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc>
Received on Thursday, 26 October 2023 12:15:27 UTC