Re: RDF-star “baseline” document

I do share these concerns, as well many of the concerns that Thomas
expressed (the unasserted aside; I am not as worried about that).

I know that once one has grasped the distinction, the choice of opaque
or transparent is "obvious"; but history has shown that this is not
easy to grasp. It's not about the "quotes", it's about the distinction
between tokens and interpretations. And not even the formal syntax (g)
vs. interpretation/model (I), but about exposing it in the domain of
discourse; for developers and users with a wide range of backgrounds,
training and assumptions. In a way, I think this proposal is good in
part *because* it can show how difficult that can become.

As Andy also replied, we did talk about there being a connection
between the opaque and transparent triples. But I'm not sure this
baseline proposal explains how to make the connection. And I agree,
there should be one (perhaps even must be, to prevent users from
accidentally painting their data into a corner).

Taking as much as I could into consideration, I've written an
alternative proposal, attempting to simplify this by removing
transparent triples (gasp!) and then betting on it being feasible to
entail transparent statements from their tokens.

I just put it at [1], *far* too late for the call today. But based on
where the discussion goes, it might be up for debate on tomorrow's
SemTF telecon. I know e.g. Enrico won't like it -- I'm not even sure
*I* do -- but if the opaque functional "triple token" point is deemed
necessary, it may be better to root everything in that; *if* it can
also be "peeked into".

(Its Achilles' heel is probably the notion of a "B-function" (from
Dörthe's options) to go from a literal-like triple to its
interpretation. It also adds a "hop" to get to the "real reifier",
using a qualifiedBy relation. I do think there is a common prior
pattern to that though, so, for better or worse, it may be more
recognizable... It echoes what I've seen in Wikidata, as well as
"option 2: sugar+" from the "seeking consensus" table [2]. There is
also no apparent need for a naming syntax with this alternative (it is
neutral to that).)

All the best,
Niklas

[1]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/wiki/Proposal:-Triple-Tokens-Entailing-Reified-Statements>
[2]: <https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/seeking-consensus-2024-01.html>


On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 2:13 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 14:13:12 UTC