Re: The way forward

I'm not following this at all.

<< :r | :a :b :c >> :p :o .
<< :r | :d :e :f >> :p :o .

is not about graphs.  It is about reification of two triples with the same 
reifier.   So I don't think that anything here is relevant.

peter

PS: Reification of graphs would be something like:

:r rdf:reifies :g .
:a :b :c :g .
:d :e :f :g .


On 4/25/24 10:48, Thompson, Bryan wrote:
> I think I can comment with some insight into the original intent of RDR, RDF*, 
> etc.  The intent was a mechanism for statement level metadata.  With this 
> mechanism, it is possible to build up edge properties and a variety of other 
> constructions.  Today, LPG interoperability is certainly a major use case, but 
> that was less true back in 2000s when I was doing talks on Reification Done 
> Right (RDR).  The gap has always been there with the semantic web.
> 
> Some people have asked why same identifier for multiple different triples is a 
> problem.  It's a problem because it is simply not responsive to these original 
> motivating use cases (edge properties, statements about a single statement to 
> supposed security, provenance, etc.).  Because there can be multiple 
> statements grouped under the same identifier, this can not reliably be used to 
> construct edge properties, etc.
> I'm 
> I think it is best to call the current proposal Statements about Graphs.  That 
> is an accurate description of what it achieves.
> 
> However, Statements about Graphs does not support use cases relying on the 
> ability to make assertions about single statements.  Yes, of course a Graph 
> can contain a single statement and under this case things reduce to the same 
> thing.  But any applications or platforms that want to build up mechanisms 
> such as edge properties can not build upon that special case unless it is 
> protected, for example, by a well-formedness constraint, by a profile, etc.
> 
> Thus, going forward without something which clearly and without ambiguity 
> supports "Statements about Statements" (which has always meant statements 
> about a specific Statement, not about a Graph) fails to support the key 
> motivating use cases behind Reification Done Right, behind RDF*, and behind 
> the Charter of this working group.
> 
> I can see a compromise emerging with anything which allows that necessary and 
> sufficient restriction.  But without such a restriction, the output of this WG 
> would fail to address the central motivating use cases that got all of this 
> rolling.
> 
> And this is not about efficiency.  Statements about Graphs is not the same as 
> Statements about Statements.  The former is one or more statements about one 
> or more statements.  The latter is one or more statements about a single 
> statement.  That single statement restriction is necessary for this 
> mechanism.  Statements about Graphs is different.  It's not more general.  
> It's different.
> 
> Bryan
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Lassila, Ora
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 24, 2024 5:37:13 PM
> *To:* public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
> *Cc:* Thompson, Bryan
> *Subject:* The way forward
> 
> [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 16:08:15 UTC