- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 16:02:50 +0100
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On 05/06/2024 11:47, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
> I checked (what I think is the most recent version of) the examples in
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF%E2%80%90star-examples-of-profiles and while I do remember that we all were pretty glad to have resolved the conflict around many-to-many reifications, the examples IMO show that the resolution doesn’t carry much weight, but instead is rather harmful.
> I also describe some other issues.
>
> But first, a general question: is it considered possible to have
> << :e1 | ' :s :p :o ' >>
> refer to a referentially opaque triple and
> << :e1 | :s :p :o >>
> (using the same reifier) to refer to a referentially transparent triple or would they need to have different reifiers?
>
>
> And, another first, I also note that all examples speak about unasserted assertions only, i.e. none of them bothers to add the triple terms as actually asserted triples. The need to do this as an extra step is not only a nuisance but also easy to forget or overlook. That is something that increasingly bothers me.
Annotation syntax still applies - that asserts the triple.
I guess the examples concentrated on the behavior of the profiles.
Andy
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2024 15:02:57 UTC