Re: Terminology definitions ; motivating example

Absolutely. I have added *draft* definitions (based on what I've
gathered so far, as I recently wrote to the list [1]; also trying to
answer Thomas' follow-up on that).

(While that must be further edited/revised/overhauled collaboratively,
if it was too contentious to begin with we might need to open an issue
for "Proposed Defininions"; or create a document in the repo and hash
out details in a PR.)

As for Motivating Example, do we want just one illustrative example,
such as Enrico's "marriage case" (event-oriented)? Or a couple more,
e.g. my recent "library case" (event-, identity- and "description
provenance"-oriented), and something from a scientific domain, such as
the UniProt case [2]? Unless we miss something crucial in those from
our collected and analyzed use cases [3], such as a strict data
provenance use case?

(Also, would anyone else like a more detailed scenario, akin to what I
sketched out in [4]?)

Best regards,
Niklas

[1] : https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jan/0042.html
[2]: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/wiki/RDF-star-for-explanation-and-provenance-in-biological-data
[3]: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/wiki/Summary
[4]: https://gist.github.com/niklasl/94df648c0767e206456cc4857baecac0


On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 5:10 PM Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>
> In the strawname wiki page, we have some sections.
>
> Two that we can start on before we get to the details of the strawman
> proposal are "Motivating example" and "Terminology".
>
> To make progress, please suggest text definitions for terminology we are
> using.
>
> The most important one at the moment is "occurrence" - it's not the only
> one e.g. "unasserted" It would be useful to collect definitions for
> terminology in any proposals: "claim", "named triple", "triple term" ...
>
> For the "Motivating example", can we have proposals - we discussed
> having one example so let's collect some possibilities and see if the
> subgroup thinks they make the right points and then create one.
>
>      Andy
>
> On 05/01/2024 17:50, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
>  > On Jan 4, 2024, at 01:03 PM, Lassila, Ora <ora@amazon.com
>  > <mailto:ora@amazon.com>> wrote:
>  >>
>  >> As we decided today in the WG call, we will use tomorrow’s Semantics
>  >> Task Force meeting slot for a discussion of a “broad strokes”
>  >> proposal. The general idea is to come up with a proposal that focuses
>  >> the direction of our future work; once we agree on the overall
>  >> direction (and this is where people can express what they can and
>  >> cannot live with, etc.), we can then move on to hammering out the
>  >> details and get closer to completion. Or at least in an “ideal world”
>  >> this would be the case. ;-)
>  >> Even if you are not a member of the Semantics Task Force but are
>  >> willing to “roll up your sleeves and get to work”, please consider
>  >> attending.
>
>  > Linked from the end of that, there's a wiki page started by
>  > AndyS that captures other facets of what we discussed --
>  >
>  >
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Triple%E2%80%90Edge-subgroup-proposals
> <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Triple%E2%80%90Edge-subgroup-proposals>
>  >
>  > Note that this wiki page's name (and URI) may change, and there
>  > is (so far as I can tell) no way for me to permalink to it that
>
> GH wikis keep rename indirections for awhile - I'm not sure how long for.
>
>  > will persist through such changes, and redirects are not automatic
>  > if they're even possible in GitHub Wiki...
>  >
>  > Be seeing you,
>  >
>  > Ted
>
>

Received on Sunday, 7 January 2024 23:59:39 UTC