Re: Terminology definitions ; motivating example

On 07/01/2024 23:59, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> 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).

Thanks - that's start.

Definitions don't need explanation.
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-triples

The audience is readers wanting precise definition.

We don't have to get the text exactly right and minimal immediately, 
this is the strawman proposal. It is where it has got to get to 
eventually for the terminology that ends up in the final WG output.

It was someone's suggestion/request that we have terminology to cover 
most proposals so we can compare.

One or two sentence, standalone text, maybe followed by some short 
paragraphs about the item.  That's for a different audience - readers 
who want a concise description.

RDF Concepts also uses "NOTE" which are paragraph-sized additional, 
non-normative material.

The whole of RDF 1.2 Concepts (without appendices) is currently about 20 
pages.

And yes - shorter is harder [A]. Hopefully, we can circle inwards.

> (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.)

Process-wise :

True - GH wikis don't provide discussion.
We can use email for now and sort out process at a meeting because 
definitions are short enough.

> 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]?)

One or two short examples. The motivating example is for use in RDF 
Concepts. It would be a short example akin to the CG report or
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-quoted-triples

The CG report has one example, then one about annotation syntax, then 
one on each of SPARQL Query and SPARQL Update.

On Friday (2024-12-05) were both for and against points about using 
annotation syntax at that point.

It does not have to cover every aspect of the feature nor be complete 
background. The purpose is to help the reader for the definitions to come.

On Friday, there wasn't much enthusiasm for a new WG Note on the area 
RDF-star.  Gregg's suggestion was for longer material to go into the primer.

https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-primer/#section-data-model

     Andy

[A] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal

> 
> 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 Monday, 8 January 2024 08:34:49 UTC