Re: [a] way forward

My apologies to everybody: I did mean this response to be sent to James only, not the whole list. The slightly triumphant tone in the last paragraph and the hint at NNG were absolutely not meant for the list and I apologize if I stepped on anybodies toes. I’m glad to see that we seem to have found common ground again, and I’m looking forward to fleshing that out.

Sorry again for the noise and any hurt feelings it may have caused,
Thomas

> On 25. Apr 2024, at 10:08, Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Am 25. April 2024 09:34:15 MESZ schrieb James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>:
>> good morning;
>> 
>>> On 25. Apr 2024, at 02:37, Lassila, Ora <ora@amazon.com> 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?
> 
> we'll have to see how this turns out. there's only been superficial discussion of profiles so far, or maybe i missed something. i would expect the outcome to be something like a best practices document, accompanying shacl constraints, and a new name for the thing (i _think_ profiles already is taken) that gives it a normative status, so one can refer to it, share it, estabkish a common understanding of what is acceptable to a given system. 
> 
> the bottom line is of course that sanity prevailed. this however doesn't make NNG obsolete because as i tend to forget from time to time, triple terms are not asserted... 
> 
> best, 
> thomas 
> 
> 
>> best regards, from berlin,
>> ---
>> james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

Received on Thursday, 25 April 2024 08:59:06 UTC