Re: Other comments to the sugar proposal

Enrico,

I think there are two questions we need to answer in sequence:

1. do we have consensus on the "sugar" proposal (i.e. not adding 
anything new to the abstract syntax for mapping the << :e | :s :p :o >> 
concrete syntax)?
2. which vocabulary do we use?

No need, IMO, to go deep in the weeds with Q2 if we can't find consensus 
on Q1 anyway...

   pa


On 22/01/2024 17:00, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> Other comments to the /sugar/proposal at 
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/sugar-proposal.md.

>
> (a)
> NO INTRODUCTION OF rdf:isNameOf
> Why: it suggests a new predicate rdf:isNameOf whose interpretation is 
> undefined (because the range is undefined).
>
> (b)
> NO USE OF rdf:Statement
> Why: events, situations, and syntactic triples are not statements.
>
> (c)
> USE A COMPLETELY NEW VOCABULARY
> Instead to the original reification vocabulary, one should introduce a 
> new vocabulary, like rdf:reif_subject, rdf:reif_predicate, 
> rdf:reif_object.
> Why: this is important to map back SPARQL results from querying graphs 
> with older reifications.
>
> (d)
> ADD to the section on RDF reification an explanation of the new 
> reification.
> ADD A BEST PRACTICES SECTION.
>
> cheers
> —e.