Re: [a] way forward

good morning;

> On 25. Apr 2024, at 02:37, Lassila, Ora <> wrote:
> [My apologies that this comes at the last moment before tomorrow’s meeting.]
>  We have had long discussions within the Neptune team about the ongoing debate in the WG. We want to find an amicable, consensus-based way forward. Obviously the support within the WG for the multi-triple reifier proposal is strong, and we understand that many WG members may not be willing to live with the single-triple reifier approach. That said, we also believe that we (Neptune and our OneGraph project) need to be true to our vision of the future of “graph interoperability”.
>  Thus, we would like to bring back the idea of profiles: one for the multi-triple reifier support, another for the single-triple option. This would allow implementors some leeway, and would ultimately let the graph marketplace choose. People already make choices about what technologies they use, sometimes based on the level of support different technology vendors offer. Bottom line: we do not want to block progress in the WG, and this would let us move towards finishing the specifications. I think it is better that we get the largest possible number of implementors building RDF 1.2 -compliant products, rather than some companies “opting out”.

how would this differ in either intent or effect from a system which, in order to promote interoperability with lisp applications, were to require that the relations represented in rdf lists must conform to the iso specification for common lisp, or from a system which endeavoured to ensure interoperability with web applications by enforcing the syntax for http iris which is specified respective rfc?

best regards, from berlin,
james anderson | |

Received on Thursday, 25 April 2024 07:34:32 UTC