Re: [a] way forward

So far, the main rationale for not including many-to-many reifiers that has 
been brought forward appears to me to be an attempt to limit some part of RDF 
1.2 to the facilities provided in some version of labelled property graphs.  I 
do not view this as an acceptable criterion for the design of any version of 
RDF.  Therefore I do not accept this as a reason to create a profile for RDF 
1.2 that does not include many-to-many reifiers.


PS:  I view this rationale just the same as I would view the rationale for 
eliminating multi-edges from labelled property graphs because RDF doesn't have 

On 4/24/24 20:37, 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”.
> Ora
> -- 
> Dr. Ora Lassila
> Principal Technologist, Amazon Neptune

Received on Thursday, 25 April 2024 11:06:15 UTC