Re: A proposed methodology for seeking consensus

Hi Pierre-Antoine,

Yes, I agree.

While we have a lot of use cases with examples already [1], we could
work together on a couple of concentrated, motivating examples.

In light of what was said about the wiki-page [2] yesterday I don't
want to touch that. So I put a half-page at [3] just now to get
started on the "motivations" part.

We could talk about adding something like that into [4] during today's
subgroup meeting.

Best regards,
Niklas
_
[1]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/wiki/Summary>
[2]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Triple%E2%80%90Edge-subgroup-proposals>
[3]: <https://hackmd.io/2UaDAHtCQJ-3WRDYhzqQsg>
[4]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/tree/main/docs>





On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 8:59 AM Pierre-Antoine Champin
<pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> the discussion from yesterday's meeting got me thinking quite a lot. In
> particular:
> * I share Andy's concern about convergence
> * I like what Gregg said about trying to build a common proposal rather
> than compare different proposal
> * I agree with Thomas that the less controversial point seems to be the
> concrete Turtle syntax
> * as many have repeated before, we should ground our design choices in
> use-cases
>
> So may be we should start from a proposal for the concrete syntax,
> and try to express our different use cases with this syntax.
> Then, for each use-case, we identify some SPARQL queries that could be
> exectued agains the UC data,
> and what would be the desirble outcome for that use case.
> Note that I we should come up with SELECT queries, but also ASK queries
> (the latter being a proxy for talking about simple entailment).
>
>  From the desired outcome, hopefully, we should be able to drive an
> abstract syntax that satisfies them, and a semantics.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>      pa
>
>

Received on Friday, 12 January 2024 10:05:41 UTC