- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:14:41 +0100
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On 12/04/2024 17:06, Gregory Williams wrote: > On Apr 11, 2024, at 3:46 AM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ora, Bryan, >> >> I interpret you as claiming that all reasonable uses of `rdf:reifies` reification should be restricted to *one statement*? >> >> As we know, multiple *triples* may denote the *same relationship* (following from entailment), and thus any such restriction must be on a semantic level *above* RDF. OWL already has such features; but it's unclear if you're suggesting we somehow add functional properties to the core of RDF? > > I think it’s worth noting that there have been two different use-cases discussed for why we’d want the one-reifier-multiple-statements feature. One is this entailment argument about multiple triples denoting the same relationship. But we started the discussion (I think) with Enrico’s proposal for one reifier being able to reify statements that were *not* the same relationship (because the reifier was standing in for an event and many different triples/relationships). Interesting - in the entailment argument, "one" use (many-to-one syntactic) reification implies all the consequences (many-to-many in the semantics). > > I personally think it’s worth exploring the entailment case more, though being able to have implementation-based restrictions in this area seems natural to me as someone who has worked on lots of SPARQL systems, none of which implemented entailment regimes that would have been impacted by such restrictions. > > However, the more complex use-case that Enrico proposed seems to go well beyond the “statements about statements” that I understood to be our (WG) scope, and as noted by Ora, I think that supporting use-case would make LPG interop much harder. I don’t think interop is explicitly a goal of fhis group, but our charter does mention it (in the introduction just before the scope): > >>> [RDF*] has become quite popular, especially as a means to provide interoperability between RDF and Property Graphs, and has already been implemented to various extents by a number of vendors and open-source libraries. > > I think it would be strange to interpret this language’s inclusion in the charter in any other way than as implicitly suggesting that there is value to be had if standardized rdf-star can continue to support interop. > > Thanks, > Greg > >
Received on Monday, 15 April 2024 11:14:48 UTC