Re: RDF-star “baseline” document

I have three concerns with this as a baseline.

First, it is complex, with two different kinds of triple terms.  I think that 
the baseline should be a simple extension that meets the requirements of most 
of the use cases.

Second, opaque triple terms are completely opaque, with blank nodes treated 
just like IRIs.  Although there is a use case that requires opaque blank nodes 
I don't see how opaque blank nodes are suitable for use cases like annotations 
or provenance.

Third, there does not appear to be any connection between transparent and 
opaque triple terms.

peter


On 6/3/24 17:29, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> Hi all,
> as promised, I’ve prepared a document defining the current status of RDF-star, 
> according to what I understood from our latest chats.
> It is mainly a merge of the two previous documents about the two profiles.
> 
> The idea is that RDF with simple interpretations has two triple terms 
> (transparent and opaque) and unrestricted syntax for them. There is no other 
> adde special vocabulary.
> On the other hand, RDF with RDF interpretations introduces the special 
> vocabulary for reification, restricts the syntax of triple terms as usual (the 
> “well formed” fragment), and specifies the functionality of the annotation in 
> the reification of opaque triple terms.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Here it is:
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-"baseline" 
> <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/RDF-star-"baseline">
> 
> 
> Cheers
> —e.
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2024 12:12:54 UTC