Re: [a] way forward

My problem here is that I don't see that this has any contribution towards 
making RDF relevant.  How can this kind of limitation on RDF make it more 
relevant?

In fact, I view the many-to-one limitation as making RDF less relevant.   One 
of the main attractive points about RDF for me is the ability to "say anything 
about anything".  Yes, that can (and has) been abused.  Yes, that can (and 
has) caused problems.  But there has to be strong reasons to put a 
straightjacket on any part of RDF and I haven't seen any reason that I find 
even close to acceptable for this confining of RDF.

peter


On 4/25/24 09:02, Lassila, Ora wrote:
> Our original proposal, as well as the profile proposal, are really something we see as ensuring the continued relevancy of RDF. As much as it pains me (as an "RDF guy") to say this, LPGs are really gaining in popularity, particularly among software developers. Thus, we see closer alignment between RDF and LPGs as something that would benefit the RDF community, and indeed the entire graph community.
> 
> There is great momentum at the moment behind LPGs (e.g., the recently published ISO GQL spec). They are not following us.
>   
> And to really play the devil's advocate here, we also have to consider what the likelihood is that any major RDF vendor would implement the specifications the WG produces.
> 
> Food for thought.
> 
> Ora
> 
> 
> On 4/25/24, 7:07 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> 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
> them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 14:05:41 UTC