Re: Proposal for RDF-star Minimal Baseline - Agenda item for this week's plenary

Dear all,

This is just my informal summary (not a representative presentation;
any mistakes are my own):

1. This adds triple terms to RDF 1.2 and defines well-formed RDF 1.2
to allow them as objects of `rdf:reifies`.
2. The constituents (subject, predicate, object) of triple terms
denote in the same way as in regular triples. (This means triple terms
are "transparent"--everything in the graph is interpreted in the same
way--as was discussed last Thursday [1].)
3. The subject of an `rdf:reifies` relationship is called a "reifier".
That is a "role" of the resource (just as "subject" is) with no
restriction on what `rdf:type` these may have.
4. This is compatible with the ("many-to-one") needs of LPGs (as
Enrico describes in [2]).
5. It also works with more advanced use cases; e.g. for provenance
about ("unasserted") triples not present in the graph, and
("many-to-many") N-ary relationships.

To begin adapting spec text to this, Gregg K. has started a *DRAFT* PR
to RDF Concepts [3]. More will follow.

Some things are still open. I don't think the following points need to
be resolved nor necessarily even addressed tomorrow (provided the
above baseline is a workable foundation). But for context:
* Should RDF 1.2 be restricted to well-formed only? I added a wiki
page at [4] for evaluating versions of abstract syntax (attempting to
reduce it to minimum required).
* The reifier "role" needs a more substantive definition and/or a Note
about use cases and best practices [5].
* Is `rdf:reifies` enough, or is a companion relationship (e.g.
"implies") needed to signal "intent" or "acceptance" or a statement
(as Thomas L. has asked for)?

Best regards,
Niklas

[1]: <https://www.w3.org/2024/07/11-rdf-star-minutes.html>
[2]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-and-LPGs>
[3]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/pull/96>
[4]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Versions-of-The-Abstract-Syntax>
[5] These can be anything from reified statements, claims,
observations and qualifiers to general relators, circumstances or
events. As Andy pointed out [6], the many-to-many case is probably
less mature in RDF (not generally in KR), so we need more evaluation.
I'm working on collating notes.
[6]: <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jul/0059.html>

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 7:21 PM Adrian Gschwend
<adrian.gschwend@zazuko.com> wrote:
>
> Dear group,
>
> During the recent Semantics Task Force call, there was an informal
> agreement to propose a resolution for the main group [1]. The proposed
> resolution is to implement the minimal baseline for RDF-star as outlined
> in the following document: RDF-star "minimal baseline" [2].
>
> The chairs (Ora and I) have discussed this matter and we support
> bringing this topic to the main group for a formal resolution.
>
> We would like to add this proposal to the agenda for this week's
> meeting. Additionally, we request that a representative from the
> Semantics TF present this proposal to the group. Ideally, this could be
> done via email prior to the meeting to ensure everyone has the
> opportunity to review and prepare for the discussion.
>
> regards
>
> Ora & Adrian
>
> [1]: https://www.w3.org/2024/07/12-rdf-star-minutes.html
> [2]: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-%22minimal-baseline%22
>
> --
> Adrian Gschwend
> CEO Zazuko GmbH, Biel, Switzerland
>
> Phone +41 32 510 60 31
> Email adrian.gschwend@zazuko.com
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2024 12:53:46 UTC