Re: one RDF1.2 "stated" 4-tuple per LPG edge

Hi Souri,    I agree that the approach "one PG edge -> one RDF triple" appears to be more natural and intuitive. It is easier to grasp and implement compared to mapping one LPG edge to multiple RDF triples.   However, I am not in favor of the concept of introducing IDs. This assumes that the graph database has explicitly implemented identifiers, which is not true for all implementations. To the best of my knowledge, no PG standard enforces the use of such identifiers.   Best,   Dominik   Dnia 07 sierpnia 2024 19:24 Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com> napisał(a):  Sorry, I was using a custom notation just to communicate the idea.    So, by (s) -[id:p]-> (o), I meant an edge with   - s and o as the source and destination, respectively  - id as its (unique) edge-id and   - p as its edge-type (or label).    From:  ddooss@wp.pl <ddooss@wp.pl>    Sent:  Wednesday, August 7, 2024 12:22 PM    To:  Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>; RDF-star WG <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>    Subject:  [External] : Re: one RDF1.2 "stated" 4-tuple per LPG edge    Hi Souri,   Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>:   LPG edge:           (s) -[id:p]-> (o)   A little explanation.   What does the notation `id:p` mean in PG?   Did you mean (s)-[p:p { "id": p }]->(o) (i.e. in the schema (s)-[p :p { "id" STRING }]->(o)) in GQL and related languages, e.g. Cypher?   Or maybe your notation means something else?   Best,  Dominik