- From: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:47:51 +0200
- To: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
> On 3. Jun 2024, at 23:29, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote: > > You may notice that I changed rdf:annotationOf with rdf:hasAnnotation, in order to allow for direct literal annotation to opaque triple terms - not orthodox but useful I guess. How would you then put example 9 from [1], i.e. the n-triples expansion of the syntactic sugar that is '<< #w1 | :liz : married :richard >> :year 1964 .'? We discussed this a few times during the last months, and I among others insisted that abstract triple terms should only be allowed in object position of an rdf:annotationOf relation. IMO it's just too dangerous to allow annotations on types, because it seems so natural when the annotation consists of only one statement, but turns into garbage as soon as multiple parties add multi-part annotations. Also it seems good wrt usability to avoid a mix of annotations on tokens AND types. bes.+ [1] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF%E2%80%90star-examples-of-profiles > Here it is: > https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-"baseline" > > > Cheers > —e. > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2024 10:48:01 UTC