Re: RDF-star “baseline” document

> On 7. Jun 2024, at 15:39, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 07/06/2024 12:45, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
>>> On 6. Jun 2024, at 16:12, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I do share these concerns, as well many of the concerns that Thomas
>>> expressed (the unasserted aside; I am not as worried about that).
>> But you can’t deny that they require a lot of effort - from users, not just from us - to meet a pretty special and niche need. If I’d argue with the charter (which in general I find a pretty uninspired approach ;-) I’d say they are out of scope.
> 
> Unasserted may be "niche" to your intended and expected usages but it's not "niche" for everyone.

As probably everybody I’m not trying to fixate on "my" use cases. I also don’t want to diminish or even exclude niche use cases. But I’m pretty sure that 80/20 w.r.t. asserted/unasserted uses is not diminishing the un-asserted side, rather to the contrary. And have you heard about unasserted edges in LPG? 

What I propose - asserted transparent triple terms as the standard way to do things, RDF literals to derive any other use from - doesn’t put a huge burden on those "other" use cases. In fact probably not more than the current proposal requires from _every_ use.

Thomas

>    Andy
> 
>

Received on Friday, 7 June 2024 15:39:47 UTC