Nested Graph examples [Re: Topic this week]

> On 26. Oct 2023, at 14:15, Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@tu-dresden.de> wrote:
> 
> I am not sure whether I will make it to the meeting

Hope you do!

> and I am really curious what all of you have to say. Will you share the slides afterwards? 

Of course, but since there haven’t been many examples available for the Nested Graph approach so far, I’m sharing a draft right now.

Best,
Thomas

> 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>
>