- From: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 21:57:59 +0200
- To: RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
good evening ora; > On 11. Apr 2024, at 21:29, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: > >> On Apr 11, 2024, at 4:38 AM, Orange Lassila <ora@amazon.com> wrote: >> >> Niklas, >> What we are saying is that the “one reifier multiple triples” model will diverge RDF even more from LPGs, effectively preventing us from improving the alignment between the two graph models. This would be bad for the graph community at large. We are not saying what RDF-star is; this is a community process, and the WG will choose its own direction. What we are saying is the direction the current proposal suggests will harm the broader graph community at the expense of adding a feature the use cases of which could be satisfied using the simpler model as well. > > > RDF-star already is a superset of LPG in the sense that annotations can have their own annotations, and annotations can be entity relationships in addition to scalar attributes. Allowing a many-to-many reifier doesn’t seem like it would be the straw that breaks the camels back. For me, they key is to have a way to represent LPG in RDF-star, which I believe we can do, not necessarily to allow any RDF-star graph (not to mention dataset) be represented as an LPG. RDF already has greater expressivity than LPGs, and this would be just one more way in which RDF can represent more relationships. > > [...] as unbiased as you may have intended your few thoughts to have been received, that has not been the universal perception. in order to better understand what you would like this group to achieve, would you please explain what aspects of the situation gregg's assessment misses? best regards, from berlin, --- james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2024 19:58:16 UTC