Re: An update on [Proposal: described vs stated triple terms]

On 06/08/2024 11:44, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> At this point I think the working group needs to concentrate on 
> turning the baseline, which was agreed on, into the documents that the 
> working group needs to produce instead of yet again getting into 
> unfocused discussion on different proposals.  My opinion is that the 
> working group has bent over backwards to accommodate what appear to be 
> minority views to the detriment of making progress on the activities 
> that are mandated by its charter.  This is the point at which 
> proposals should be put to cloture votes so that progress can be made 
> on the required activities of the working group.

On 06/08/2024 14:06, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> I agree, and that’s why I wrote about few important and concrete open 
> issues to discuss or close and move on, related to the baseline, which 
> I summarise again here:
>
>  1. *To finalise about the baseline* [1]:
>       * Somebody wants to strengthen the unrestricted abstract syntax,
>         to allow triple terms only in object position.
>       * Somebody wants to weaken the well-formed abstract syntax, just
>         to allow triple terms only in object position.
>       * Somebody does not want to have the unrestricted syntax, but
>         only the well-formed syntax.
>       * Somebody argues that the denotation of triple terms should not
>         be injective.
>  2. *To reject once forever*:
>       * opacity of IRIs (discussed at length as going against the
>         principles of semantic web IRIs);
>       * singleton property semantics (which breaks the way properties
>         are used in common practice).
>
>
> In parallel, there is the discussion about extending the baseline:
>
>       * Somebody wants to add a special rdf:states predicate to deal
>         with the case of triple terms whose structure is in triples in
>         the graph [2]; even if this is accepted, there are several
>         open issues:
>           o (?) this extension should extend RDFS and not RDF;
>           o (?) /rdf:states rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:reifies./ should
>             hold in RDFS;
>           o (?) the mapping between RDF-star and LPGs should use
>             /rdf:states/ instead /rdf:reifies/;
>           o (?) the annotation syntax in Turtle could be mapped into
>             /rdf:states/ instead of /rdf:reifies/.
>
>
> —e.
>
> [1] 
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22working-baseline%22
> [2] 
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Extending-the-baseline-with-%22asserted%22-stuff
>
I support this way to move forwards.

     Andy